Tilt table testing, methodology and practical insights for the clinic.

Tilt table testing (TTT) has been used for decades to study short-term blood pressure (BP) and heart rate regulation during orthostatic challenges. TTT provokes vasovagal reflex in many syncope patients as a background of widespread use. Despite the availability of evidence-based practice syncope guidelines, proper application and interpretation of TTT in the day-to-day care of syncope patients remain challenging. In this review, we offer practical information on what is needed to perform TTT, how results should be interpreted including the Vasovagal Syncope International Study classification, why syncope induction on TTT is necessary in patients with unexplained syncope and on indications for TTT in syncope patient care. The minimum requirements to perform TTT are a tilt table with an appropriate tilt-down time, a continuous beat-to-beat BP monitor with at least three electrocardiogram leads and trained staff. We emphasize that TTT remains a valuable asset that adds to history building but cannot replace it, and highlight the importance of recognition when TTT is abnormal even without syncope. Acknowledgement by the patient/eyewitness of the reproducibility of the induced attack is mandatory in concluding a diagnosis. TTT may be indicated when the initial syncope evaluation does not yield a certain, highly likely, or possible diagnosis, but raises clinical suspicion of (1) reflex syncope, (2) orthostatic hypotension (OH), (3) postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome or (4) psychogenic pseudosyncope. A therapeutic indication for TTT in the patient with a certain, highly likely or possible diagnosis of reflex syncope, may be to educate patients on prodromes. In patients with reflex syncope with OH TTT can be therapeutic to recognize hypotensive symptoms causing near-syncope to perform physical countermanoeuvres for syncope prevention (biofeedback). Detection of hypotensive susceptibility requiring therapy is of special value.

Syncope Diagnosis at Referral to a Tertiary Syncope Unit: An in-Depth Analysis of the FAST II.

OBJECTIVE: A substantial number of patients with a transient loss of consciousness (T-LOC) are referred to a tertiary syncope unit without a diagnosis. This study investigates the final diagnoses reached in patients who, on referral, were undiagnosed or inaccurately diagnosed in secondary care. METHODS: This study is an in-depth analysis of the recently published Fainting Assessment Study II, a prospective cohort study in a tertiary syncope unit. The diagnosis at the tertiary syncope unit was established after history taking (phase 1), following autonomic function tests (phase 2), and confirming after critical follow-up of 1.5-2 years, with the adjudicated diagnosis (phase 3) by a multidisciplinary committee. Diagnoses suggested by the referring physician were considered the phase 0 diagnosis. We determined the accuracy of the phase 0 diagnosis by comparing this with the phase 3 diagnosis. RESULTS: 51% (134/264) of patients had no diagnosis upon referral (phase 0), the remaining 49% (130/264) carried a diagnosis, but 80% (104/130) considered their condition unexplained. Of the patients undiagnosed at referral, three major causes of T-LOC were revealed: reflex syncope (69%), initial orthostatic hypotension (20%) and psychogenic pseudosyncope (13%) (sum > 100% due to cases with multiple causes). Referral diagnoses were either inaccurate or incomplete in 65% of the patients and were mainly altered at tertiary care assessment to reflex syncope, initial orthostatic hypotension or psychogenic pseudosyncope. A diagnosis of cardiac syncope at referral proved wrong in 17/18 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Syncope patients diagnosed or undiagnosed in primary and secondary care and referred to a syncope unit mostly suffer from reflex syncope, initial orthostatic hypotension or psychogenic pseudosyncope. These causes of T-LOC do not necessarily require ancillary tests, but can be diagnosed by careful history-taking. Besides access to a network of specialized syncope units, simple interventions, such as guideline-based structured evaluation, proper risk-stratification and critical follow-up may reduce diagnostic delay and improve diagnostic accuracy for syncope.

A cross-sectional nationwide survey of guideline based syncope units in the Netherlands: the SU-19 score-a novel validation for best practices.

AIMS: We aimed to identify all syncope units (SUs) in the Netherlands and assess the extent to which these SUs fulfil the essential requirements outlined by the consensus statements of the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Society of Cardiology syncope guidelines. For this, we developed the SU-19 score, a novel guideline based validation tool for best practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: All outpatient clinics of cardiology, neurology, and internal medicine in the Netherlands were screened for presence of any form of structured specialized syncope care. If present, these were included as SUs and requested to complete a questionnaire regarding syncope care. We assessed all SUs using the SU-19 score regarding structure (3 points), available tests (12 points), and initial evaluation (4 points). Twenty SUs were identified in the Netherlands, both academic (5/20) and non-academic hospitals (15/20), 17/20 reported multidisciplinary involvement during initial evaluation. In 19/20, neurology, cardiology, or both were responsible for the syncope management. Non-physicians were involved performing the head-up tilt test (44%) and initial evaluation (40%). The mean SU-19 score was 18.0 ± 1.1, 45% achieved the maximum score of 19 points. Variations were observed in protocols for active standing test, carotid sinus massage, and head-up tilt test. CONCLUSION: There is a network of 20 SUs in the Netherlands. Forty-five per cent fully met the SU-19 score (mean 18.0 ± 1.1). Slight variety existed in protocols for autonomic function tests. Neurology and cardiology were mostly involved in syncope management. Non-physicians play an important role in syncope care.