Assessment of the vasodepressor reflex in carotid sinus syndrome
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Assessment of the vasodepressor reflex in carotid sinus syndrome is influenced by the method of execution of the carotid sinus massage and the coexistence of the cardioinhibitory reflex. METHODS AND RESULTS: Carotid sinus massage reproduced spontaneous symptoms in 164 patients in the presence of hypotension or bradycardia (method of symptoms). When an asystolic pause was induced, the vasodepressor reflex was reassessed after suppression of the asystolic reflex by means of 0.02 mg/kg IV atropine. An isolated vasodepressor form was found in 32 (20%) patients, who had lowest systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 65±15 mm Hg. Of these, only 21 (66%) patients had an SBP fall ≥50 mm Hg, which is the universally accepted cut-off value for the diagnosis of the vasodepressor form. Conversely, a lowest SBP value of ≤85 mm Hg (corresponding to the fifth percentile) detected 97% of vasodepressor patients, but was also present in 84% of the 132 patients with an asystolic reflex. These latter patients had both asystole ≥3 s (mean 7.6±2.2 s) and SBP fall to 63±22 mm Hg: in 46 (28%) patients, symptoms persisted after atropine (mixed form), in the remaining 86 (52%) patients, symptoms did not (cardioinhibitory form) persist. CONCLUSIONS: The current definition of ≥50 mm Hg SBP fall failed to identify one third of patients with isolated vasodepressor form. A cut-off value of symptomatic SBP of ≤85 mm Hg seems more appropriate, but it is unable to identify cardioinhibitory forms. In asystolic forms, atropine testing is able to distinguish a cardioinhibitory form from a mixed form.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The prevalence of carotid sinus syndrome, as defined here, was 8.8% when carotid sinus massage was performed after the initial evaluation in 1855 consecutive patients older than 40 years of age with syncope compatible with a reflex mechanism.
“The prevalence of CSS, as defined here, was 8.8% when CSM was performed after the initial evaluation in 1855 consecutive patients >40 years of age with syncope compatible with a reflex mechanism. 92,93”
From 2018 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (2018) · cites this paper as [93]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe diagnosis of carotid sinus syndrome requires both the reproduction of spontaneous symptoms during carotid sinus massage and clinical features of spontaneous syncope compatible with a reflex mechanism.
“There is strong consensus that the diagnosis of CSS requires both the reproduction of spontaneous symptoms during CSM and clinical features of spontaneous syncope compatible with a reflex mechanism.”
From 2018 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (2018) · cites this paper as [93]
The Methods (page unavailable) state that CSS was diagnosed when carotid sinus massage reproduced spontaneous syncope or presyncope in the presence of carotid sinus hypersensitivity. They do not state that clinical features compatible with a reflex mechanism are an additional diagnostic requirement; the study included patients whose syncope remained unexplained after initial evaluation. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMixed forms of CSS and association with positivity of tilt testing hamper the efficacy of pacing therapy in CSS.
“Two variables are well known to hamper the efficacy of pacing therapy in CSS: the mixed forms 93,98 (see also Web Practical Instructions section 5) and the association with positivity of tilt testing.”
From 2018 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (2018) · cites this paper as [93]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Solari, D., Maggi, R., Oddone, D., Solano, A., Croci, F., Donateo, P., Wieling, W., & Brignole, M.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Venue
- Circulation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
- Published
- 2014-06
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 505-510
- ISSN
- 1941-3084 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-3149
- OpenAlex
- W2547307607
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Circulation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
- Keywords
- carotid sinus syndrome, carotid sinus massage, atropine, diagnostic thresholds
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Atropine, Blood Pressure, Female, Humans, Male, Massage, Posture, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Syncope, Syndrome, Cohort Studies, Baroreflex, Syncope, Vasovagal
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review