Diagnosis of Postural Tachycardia Syndrome and vasovagal Syncope: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Wenjie Cheng and Version 1 by Wenjie Cheng.

In children, vasovagal syncope and postural tachycardia syndrome constitute the major types of orthostatic intolerance. The clinical characteristics of postural tachycardia syndrome and vasovagal syncope are similar but their treatments differ. Therefore, their differential diagnosis is important to guide the correct treatment. Children suffering from vasovagal syncope or postural tachycardia syndrome might be treated using water, β-blockers, salt, or midodrine. However, the effificacy of the drugs varies. Biomarkers or certain hemodynamic parameters that can predict the treatment effects of individualized treatment for POTS or VVS have been used.

  • orthostatic intolerance
  • vasovagal syncope
  • postural tachycardia syndrome
  • differential diagnosis
  • individualized treatment

1. Introduction

The inability to tolerate the upright posture is referred to as orthostatic intolerance (OI) and comprises a series of clinical symptoms including dizziness, headache, and temporary loss of consciousness. OI can be relieved after recumbency [1], occurs frequently, and affects both the quality of life and psychosocial health [2]. OI pathogenesis is mainly associated with autonomic dysfunction, central hypovolemia, an abnormal Bezold–Jarisch reflex, and an abnormal endothelium-dependent diastolic function [3,4,5,6]. In children and adolescents, VVS (vasovagal syncope) and POTS (postural tachycardia syndrome) are responsible for 70–80% of OI [7,8]. The clinical signs of POTS and VVS are similar but their pathogeneses are different, thus necessitating different treatments; however, care should be taken to distinguish the subtypes. The current accepted criteria to diagnose POTS and VVS in children comprise a combination of clinical data and clinical symptoms observed during a head-up tilt test (HUTT). However, a HUTT may cause episodes of syncope or asystole, usually leading to discomfort among children and adding to their psychological loads, and its widespread clinical application is thus restricted [9]. Therefore, novel, acceptable, safe, and simple criteria are required to diagnose POTS and VVS in children.
The mechanisms for VVS and POTS remain unclear. Their pathogeneses are believed to be related to the impaired regulation of peripheral vascular resistance, autonomic nervous system imbalance, hyper-adrenergic responses, and absolute hypovolemia. Consequently, children suffering from VVS or POTS might be treated using water, β-blockers, salt, or midodrine. However, the efficacy of the drugs varies.

2. Differential Diagnosis of POTS and VVS

Despite their similar clinical manifestations, different methods and strategies are used to treat VVS and POTS. A HUTT can be used to diagnose both but it can be very uncomfortable and in rare cases, it can cause arrhythmias or cardiac arrest. Currently, non-invasive differential diagnosis is an important clinical issue in this field. Therefore, finding a sensitive and reliable method for differential diagnosis between the two diseases has become an urgent clinical need. An investigation of the physiological indicators that differ between VVS and POTS could effectively improve diagnosis, which is of great significance for clinical diagnoses and precise treatments. In this review, firstly, we summarize the physiological indicators used to deferentially diagnose POTS and VVS (Table 1).
Table 1. Clinical indicators used to differentiate POTS from VVS.

2.4. Frequency Domain Indices of Heart Rate Variability (dULF)

HRV (heart rate variability), as a functionality indicator for the autonomic system, exerts an indispensable effect on the VVS pathogenesis. Wang et al. explored the utility of the HRV frequency-associated indicators dULF (daytime ultra-low-frequency), nULF (nighttime ultra-low-frequency), dVLF (daytime very-low-frequency), and nVLF (nighttime very-low-frequency) to differentially diagnose POTS and VVS. In children with VVS, the values of nVLF, dVLF, nULF, and dULF were much higher than in children with POTS, suggesting that VVS is associated with greater sympathetic excitability. Further analysis found that dULF could serve as a physiological marker to make a differential diagnosis between the two disorders as it yields a higher predictive value than the other indicators. Through the dULF value evaluation based on an ROC (receiver operating characteristic) graph, the diagnostic differentiation of VVS from POTS was achieved. Children with clinical symptoms of OI were diagnosed as having VVS if their dULF was > 36.2 ms2, for which the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 71.4% and 75.0%, respectively [21].

3. Individualized Therapy

It has been assumed that absolute hypovolemia, autonomic neural imbalance, peripheral vascular resistance dysregulation, and hyper-adrenergic responses are involved in OI pathogenesis [4]. Hence, children with VVS or POTS have received salt, water, beta-blockers, or midodrine as treatments. Occasionally, octreotide or pyridostigmine have been used to treat POTS patients, albeit with varying efficacies [22,23,24,25,26]. Considering their different mechanisms and the poor results of current treatments, scientists have sought improvements using individualized treatments. Great improvements were achieved in terms of individualized therapies and before the application of any treatment, biological markers or predictors could provide useful information for doctors to choose a specific treatment regimen. Hence, in the following section, we would like to summarize the recently discovered biological markers or predictors to promote optimal treatment strategies for patients with POTS and VVS. (Table 2) (Figure 1) Figure 1. Biomarkers to predict individualized treatment for VVS and POTS in chronological order. POTS: Postural Tachycardia Syndrome; VVS: Vasovagal Syncope; HR: heart rate; FMD: Flow-mediated vasodilation response; MR-proADM: Pro-adrenomedullin; AVP: Arginine vasopressin; CNP: C-type natriuretic peptide; BMI: Body mass index; BRS: Baroreflex sensitivity; MCHC: Mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration; LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction; LVFS: Left ventricular fractional shortening; AI: Acceleration index; HRV: Heart rate variability; 24 h urine NE: 24-h urine norepinephrine. Table 2. Clinical indicators used to predict individualized treatment of POTS and VVS.

Diagnosis

Treatment

Biological Markers or Predictors

Cut-off

Sensitivity

Specificity

Year

POTS

non-pharmacotherapy

Qtcd [27]

43.0 msec

90%

60%

2016

 

2012

 

 

Changes in heart rate during HUTT [30]

pre-treatment increase in HR = 41 beats/min

maximum upright HR in 10 min = 123 beats/min

84%

56%

2015

 

 

BMI [31]

18.02

92%

82.80%

2016

 

 

BRS [32]

17.01 ms/mmHg

85.70%

87.50%

2016

 

 

MCHC [33]

347.5 g/L

68.80%

63.20%

2017

 

midodrine hydrochloride

MR-proADM [34]

61.5 pg/mL

100%

 

metoprolol

Orthostatic plasma norepinephrine [39]

3.59 pg/mL

76.90%

91.70%

2014

 

 

AVP/Plasma copeptin [40]

10.225 pmol/L

90.50%

78.60%

2014

 

 

CNP [41]

32.55 pg/mL

95.80%

70%

2015

 

 

HRV [42]

TR index ≤ 33.7; SDNN index ≤ 79.0ms

85.3%,

81.80%

2019

 

 

HR and HR Difference [43]

HR 5 ≥ 110 beats/min

82.50%

69.23%

2020

 

 

HR 10 ≥ 112 beats/min

84.62%

69.70%

 

 

HR difference 5 ≥ 34 beats/min

85.29%

89.47%

 

 

HR difference 10 ≥ 37 beats/min

97.56%

64.86%

VVS

orthostatic training

AI [44]

26.77

85.00%

69.20%

2019

 

midodrine hydrochloride

FMD [45]

8.85%

90%

80%

2012

 

metoprolol

HR [46]

increase of 30 beats/min

81%

80%

2007

Plasma H2S level 98 μmol/L 90% 80% 2012
Serum iron level 11.8 μmol/L, 92.50% 64.70% 2013
AI and 30/15 AI: 28.180;

30/15: 1.025
95.80% 80.80% 2018
dULF 36.2 ms2 71.40% 75.00% 2019