This HTML5 document contains 25 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:w

rdf:type

rdac:C10001 bibo:Article

dcterms:isPartOf

n16:w

dcterms:subject

n15:originalpapers

dcterms:title

The intravenous adenosine test: a new test for the identification of bradycardia pacing indications? A pilot study in subjects with bradycardia pacing indications, vasovagal syncope and controls

rdaw:P10072

n13:web n13:print

vivo:relatedBy

n4:5 n4:1 n4:3 n4:2 n4:4 n4:6 n4:7

marcrel:aut

n2:parrysw n2:naths n2:bextonrs n11:person n2:grayjc n2:tynanm n2:chadwickt

dcterms:abstract

Background: Intravenous adenosine has recently been used in the diagnosis of unexplained syncope, but there is no consensus as to the meaning of a ‘positive’ test. The objective is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of intravenous adenosine testing in the diagnosis of bradycardia-pacing indications [sinus node dysfunction(SND), atrio-ventricular block (AVB) and cardio-inhibitory carotid sinus syndrome (CSS)]. Design: Pilot cohort study. Methods: Patients—(i) Bradycardia-pacing group: Consecutive patients referred for pacing for SND, AVB and CSS; (ii) Consecutive head-up tilt (HUT)-positive VVS patients. Controls—(i) Simple controls (S-Con: normal examination/ECG) and (ii) Electrophysiology controls (EP-Con: consecutive subjects referred for accessory pathway ablation). Pacing referrals and EP-Con had electrophysiology studies to confirm referral diagnosis and exclude others. All subjects had bolus injection of 20 mg intravenous adenosine during continuous ECG and blood pressure monitoring (positive test: ⩾6 s asystole, ⩾10 s high-degree AVB post-injection). Sensitivity, specificity, safety and tolerability of the test were measured. Results: Of 264 potential participants (4 SND, 8 AVB, 7 CSS, 10 VVS, 10 EP-Con and 11 S-Con) 50 were studied. All (100%) of the bradycardia-pacing group were adenosine test-positive, as were 6 (60%) VVS. None (0%) and 3 (27%) of the EP- and S-Con groups were positive. Adenosine testing was 100% sensitive and 86% specific for bradycardia-pacing indications, and 100% specific using the diagnostically ‘clean’ EP-Con results. There were no significant adverse or side effects. Conclusions: Adenosine testing reliably identified patients with definitive bradycardia-pacing indications in whom alternative diagnoses were excluded. Further work is needed to evaluate the role of this test in the diagnosis of unexplained syncope.

hub:articleType

n8:researcharticle

hub:publisher-id

hcp048

hub:isPartOfThisJournal

n7:w