PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11096512

Syndrome X.

Abstract

Syndrome X, defined as typical angina with positive exercise test results and normal coronary angiographic findings, represents a multifactorial pathophysiologic state that may range from abnormalities in pain perception to abnormalities in endothelial- and nonendothelial-dependent coronary flow reserve associated with myocardial ischemia. Treatment begins with accurate diagnosis by means of a comprehensive coronary vascular reactivity evaluation. This may lay the groundwork for appropriate treatment. The management of patients with syndrome X is challenging, and it may be necessary to attempt various medications depending on the patient's response. We feel that the first step in the treatment is accurate diagnosis. This is done by performing a functional angiogram (assessment of endothelial-dependent and endothelial-independent coronary flow reserve). In those without evidence of coronary flow reserve abnormalities, reassurance might be curative; however, in those who continue to have symptoms, a trial of imipramine therapy at a dose of 50 mg/d may be attempted, provided other organic disorders (in particular gastrointestinal disorders) are excluded. Those who demonstrate evidence of abnormal coronary vascular reactivity are approached as outlined in Figure 1. Patients are advised to avoid medications that may cause coronary "spasm." We routinely refer our patients to the cardiovascular health clinic for risk factor management and an exercise program. Our first choice of medications usually consists of slow-release calcium channel blockers. We tend to start with a once-a-day regimen, and based on the response, we occasionally change the regimen to twice a day. If the functional angiogram reveals concomitant epicardial disease, then nitrates are added to the medical regimen. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are part of the treatment if the patient has hypertension or diabetes or if calcium channel blocker therapy fails. l-Arginine at an initial dosage of 1 g three times daily is added and may be increased to 3 g three times daily if no contraindications are present. Because there are no data regarding the effect of l-arginine, which may affect insulin secretion, in patients with diabetes, we use caution in this patient population. There is no "gold standard" therapy for syndrome X, so each patient may respond differently to the initial medical therapy. Thus, we follow these patients closely to monitor their response to treatment.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Al Suwaidi J, A Lerman. 2000. Syndrome X.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-000-0030-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗