New hemodynamic criteria to separate classical orthostatic hypotension from vasovagal syncope

• Main Authors: Maryam Ghariq, Fabian I. Kerkhof, Robert H. Reijntjes, Roland D. Thijs, J. Gert vanDijk
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2021-08-01
• Series: Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.51412

Abstract Objective To define and evaluate hemodynamic criteria to distinguish between classical orthostatic hypotension (cOH) and vasovagal syncope (VVS) in tilt table testing (TTT). Methods Inclusion criteria for VVS were a history of VVS and tilt‐induced syncope defined as a blood pressure (BP) decrease and electroencephalographic changes during syncope with complaint recognition. Criteria for cOH were a history of cOH and a BP decrease meeting published criteria. Clinical diagnoses were established prior to TTT. We assessed (1) whether the decrease of systolic BP accelerated, “convex,” or decelerated, “concave”; (2) the time from head‐up tilt to when BP reached one‐half its maximal decrease; (3) the difference between baseline heart rate (HR) and HR at BP nadir. We calculated the diagnostic yield of optimized thresholds of these features and their combinations. Results We included 82 VVS cases (40% men, median age 44 years) and 65 cOH cases (66% men, median age 70 years). BP decrease was concave in cOH in 79% and convex in VVS in 94% (p < 0.001). The time to reach half the BP decrease was shorter in cOH (median 34 sec, interquartile range (IQR) 19–98 sec) than in VVS (median 1571 sec, IQR 1381–1775 sec, p < 0.001). Mean HR increased by 11 ± 11 bpm in cOH and decreased by 20 ± 19 bpm in VVS (p < 0.001). When all three features pointed to VVS, sensitivity for VVS was 82% and specificity was 100%. When all three pointed to cOH, sensitivity for cOH was 71% and specificity was 100%. Interpretation These new hemodynamic criteria reliably differentiate cOH from VVS.