IMR Press / RCM / Volume 22 / Issue 4 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2204139
Open Access Review
Inappropriate sinus tachycardia: a review
Show Less
1 Department of Cardiology, Khyber Medical Institute Srinagar, 190010 Jammu and Kashmir, India
2 Department of Cardiology, Walter Reed Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
3 Department of Internal Medicine, Central Michigan University, Mt Pleasant, MI 48859, USA
4 Division of Cardiology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA
5 Section of Electrophysiology, McLaren Greater Lansing Hospital, Lansing, MI 48910, USA
*Correspondence: Khalil.kanjwal@mclaren.org (Khalil Kanjwal)
Academic Editor: Yoshiaki Kaneko
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 22(4), 1331–1339; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2204139
Submitted: 25 September 2021 | Revised: 14 October 2021 | Accepted: 15 October 2021 | Published: 22 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Electrophysiology: Diagnosis and Treatment)
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Abstract

Inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST) has been defined as a resting heart rate of >100 beats per minute and an average 24-hour heart rate >90 bpm with distressing symptoms resulting from the persistent tachycardia. IST is prevalent in 1% of the middle-aged population, mostly females. Rarely can elderly patients also present with IST. Possible mechanisms of IST include intrinsic sinus node abnormality, beta-adrenergic receptor stimulating autoantibody, beta-adrenergic receptor supersensitivity, muscarinic receptor autoantibody, or hyposensitivity, impaired baroreflex control, depressed efferent parasympathetic/vagal function, nociceptive stimulation, central autonomic overactivity, aberrant neurohumoral modulation, etc. Symptoms associated with IST are palpitations, chest pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, presyncope, and syncope. Despite these distressing symptoms, IST has not been associated with tachycardia-associated cardiomyopathy or increased major cardiovascular events. Various treatment options for patients with IST are ivabradine, beta-adrenergic blockers, calcium channel blockers, psychiatric evaluation, and exercise training. Although, endocardial radiofrequency ablation targeting the sinus node has been used as a treatment modality for otherwise treatment-refractory IST, the results have been dismal. The other modalities used for refractory IST treatment are endocardial modification of the sinus node using radiofrequency energy, combined endo and epicardial ablation of the sinus node, thoracoscopic epicardial ablation of the sinus node, sinus node sparing thoracoscopic and endocardial hybrid ablation. The goal of this review is to provide the readership with the pathophysiological basis of IST and its management options.

Keywords
Autonomic dysfunction
Inappropriate sinus tachycardia
Ivabradine
1. Introduction

Inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST) is a clinical syndrome characterized by persistently increased resting heart rate (HR) and a further exaggerated increase with minimal physiologic stimuli. 2015 Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) expert consensus statement defines IST as a resting sinus HR of >100 beats per minute (bpm), an average 24-hour HR >90 bpm without any identifiable cause, and distressing symptoms resulting from the persistent tachycardia [1].

Some experts have divided IST patients into three groups based on the HR pattern (a) normal resting heart rate (<85 bpm) with an exaggerated increase in HR in response to minimal stimuli, (b) moderately increased resting HR (>85 bpm) with an exaggerated increase in HR in response to minimal stimuli and (c) markedly elevated resting HR with a graded response to physiologic stimuli [2].

2. Epidemiology

Epidemiological data regarding IST is scarce. A prospective, population-based case-control study found a prevalence of 1.16% (n = 7; Male:Female, 1:4) in 604 middle-aged subjects. The mean age of the IST patients was 47 ± 7 years [3].

In a single-center, retrospective study of Holter recordings, 63 patients (4.98%) out of 1265 patients were diagnosed with IST according to the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) criteria [4]. The authors did not include 33 patients with a mean HR of 90 bpm and resting HR of <100 bpm in the IST cohort, which may have underestimated the true IST prevalence in the symptomatic population. The mean age of patients was 39.7 years, and 60% of the patients were females.

In a retrospective analysis of 305 IST patients, the mean age of patients was 33 years at the time of diagnosis, and 92.1% (n = 281) were females [5].

Although most patients are young females, IST has been diagnosed in elderly patients as well. Lopera et al. [6] have reported on four women in whom IST was diagnosed in the 6th or 7th decade of life. One of the main issues with their methodology was that they included an increase in HR of 25 bpm on standing from a supine position as an inclusion criterion which may indicate an overlap between IST and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) [7].

Some reports indicate that a disproportionate number of IST patients are healthcare workers [8, 9]. Two of the seven IST patients (29%) in the OPERA study were healthcare workers [3]. The exact reason for this phenomenon is unknown, but one possibility is that the healthcare workers may be quick to recognize the tachycardia when it occurs and seek medical care for this.

3. Pathophysiology

The funny current (If) or the pacemaker current is a mixed Na+/K+ inward current mediated by hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) channels found in heart cells with pacemaking ability. The funny If current is activated during hyperpolarization and is responsible for spontaneous diastolic (phase 4) depolarization which leads to pacemaker cell depolarization. Sympathetic stimulation via beta-adrenergic activation increases the funny current by increasing cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), leading to an increased firing rate of pacemaker cells. Vagal stimulation leads to decreased pacemaker activity by decreasing cAMP levels. HCN channels most common in the human sinoatrial node are HCN4 [10] (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Heart rate control via the autonomic nervous system. Sinus node activation is managed by cellular currents, including IKAch, INaCa, IKr, and L-type calcium channels, among others. Moreover, calcium released from the sarcoplasmic reticulum plays a role in the setting of the sinus rate. The parasympathetic system helps determine the rate at rest through acetylcholine and nitric oxide, and parasympathetic activation affects the muscarinic receptor (M2). If: funny current. INaCa, sodium/calcium exchange current; IKr, delayed rectifier potassium current; IKAch, inward-rectifier potassium channel.

Morillo et al. [11] found that in 6 IST patients, there was increased sinus node automaticity, beta-adrenergic hypersensitivity, and decreased response to vagal stimulation. Intrinsic heart rate in IST patients after autonomic blockade with propranolol and atropine was significantly higher, which means that patients with IST have an intrinsic sinus node abnormality despite adrenergic hypersensitivity and vagal hyporesponsiveness. IST patients also have a markedly reduced vagal efferent tone [12].

Wising in 1941 first described a familial form of IST that was labeled as familial, congenital sinus tachycardia [13]. A gain-of-function mutation (arginine-to-glutamine; R524Q) in the HCN4 gene has been reported in a family of IST patients. This mutation leads to an increased affinity of the HCN4 channels to cAMP, thus mimicking beta-adrenergic stimulation [14].

Chiale et al. [15] found circulating anti-beta-adrenergic IgG antibodies in 11 of 21 (52%) patients (21 females; mean age 37 years). These antibodies had a positive chronotropic effect by increasing cAMP levels which was abolished by propranolol in all but one patient. This study proved that the immunologic phenomenon might be responsible for IST in half of the IST patients, which still doesn’t explain the pathogenesis of IST in a significant number of patients in which there may be other mechanisms responsible for IST. In this study, the chronotropic effect of anti-beta-adrenergic IgG antibodies could not be reversed by propranolol in one patient leading the authors to hypothesize that beta-adrenergic receptors may not be the only target of such antibodies.

Adenosine typically has a biphasic response on sinus node activity: an initial reduced sinus node firing rate followed by reflex sinus tachycardia. But in IST, both of these responses are impaired with or without pharmacologic autonomic blockade with propranolol and atropine. Interestingly, Still et al. [16] in their study also reported that transient second degree or third-degree atrioventricular block after adenosine administration was less frequent in IST patients in comparison to healthy controls leading the authors to postulate that impaired function of acetylcholine-sensitive and adenosine-sensitive potassium channels (IKAch,Ado) may be the cause of IST. These observations also suggest that autonomic system anomalies present in IST patients may not be the primary cause of the tachycardia.

IST has also been reported in a 53-year-old man who developed IST one year after receiving a bicaval heart transplant. Sympathetic reinnervation of the donor’s heart was ruled out using I123 metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scintigraphy, pointing out that IST can develop in a heart that has no autonomic innervation [17].

Other factors proposed for IST pathogenesis are beta-adrenergic receptor supersensitivity, muscarinic receptor abnormality, central and peripheral nociceptive effects, neurohormonal modulation, hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus stimulation, and non-muscarinic, non-adrenergic, vagally-mediated tachycardia [18] (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Schematic of inappropriate sinus tachycardia pathogenesis. Please see the text for details.

In a significant number of patients, a precipitating event initiating the tachycardia has been reported. The most common triggers identified in IST patients are pregnancy (7.9%), antecedent infectious illness (5.9%), emotional stress (3.6%) [5].

Multiple reports have documented IST after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for various supraventricular tachycardias (SVT) [19, 20, 21, 22]. The possible explanations for this phenomenon are autonomic modulation to the heart by ablation of vagal ganglia and increased awareness of heart rate after an ablation procedure. In atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) ablation procedures, one possibility remains that the patients were having symptoms of increased heart rate because of dual AV nodal physiology, which was ablated and were then labeled as AVNRT [5].

As the COVID-19 epidemic runs rampant across various nations, there is increasing evidence that one of the sequelae of COVID-19 infection is autonomic dysfunction as a component of the post-COVID syndrome [23]. Huang et al. [24] reported that at 6-months follow-up, 9% (154 out of 1655) of patients who had recovered from COVID-19 reported palpitations. Ståhlberg et al. [25] report that 25–50% of patients had palpitations or tachycardia persisting 12 weeks or longer, and they have proposed the term “post-COVID-19 tachycardia syndrome” for the persistent symptomatic tachycardia after COVID-19 illness. POTS and IST have been reported as a spectrum of this syndrome [23, 26, 27].

4. Clinical features and diagnosis

Palpitations are the most common symptom in around 90% of patients. Other symptoms include chest discomfort, fatigue, shortness of breath, presyncope, and syncope. Depression and anxiety each are found in a quarter of the patients with IST. Almost a quarter of patients have a documented arrhythmia other than IST, most commonly atrial tachycardia, followed by AVNRT and AF [5].

The occasional case reports of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy notwithstanding, the overall prognosis of IST is favorable. One of the reasons these patients do not develop cardiomyopathy is that the normal diurnal variation in HR is preserved in these patients [28].

IST is a diagnosis of exclusion. Evaluation should be aimed at ruling out secondary causes of sinus tachycardia, e.g., anemia, hyperthyroidism, heart failure, etc. Evaluation of an IST usually requires a 12-lead electrocardiogram (EKG), 24-hour Holter monitoring, echocardiography. The further non-invasive evaluation may require an exercise test to assess the severity of symptoms and diagnose patients who have normal resting heart rates, as already pointed out in the introduction section [1].

Tilt table testing is required to rule out the presence of POTS. In the study by Shabtaie et al. [5], 24% of patients were diagnosed as having POTS.

According to the HRS expert consensus statement [1], various tests for cardiac autonomic responses like Valsalva, heart rate variability, cold face test, and baroreflex sensitivity are not routinely indicated because of unproven clinical benefits.

An invasive cardiac electrophysiology study is indicated if the diagnosis is in doubt or another tachycardia mechanism is suspected [29].

IST and sinus node reentrant tachycardia have similar EKG findings. The two can be differentiated by initiation and termination with a premature atrial contraction, termination by adenosine, or various vagal maneuvers characteristic of sinus node reentrant tachycardia [30].

5. Management

Reassurance and avoidance of cardiac stimulants are an integral part of IST management [29].

Pharmacotherapy usually involves beta-blockers, ivabradine, and calcium channel blockers. Some of the other drugs that have been used in IST are flecainide, sotalol, fludrocortisone, midodrine, etc.

Beta-blockers are the most widely used drugs for IST, but the improvement in the symptoms is modest. In a retrospective analysis, only about 25% of patients reported improved symptoms, and 4% reported complete resolution of symptoms with beta-blockers [31].

Evidence of the benefit of nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in IST is limited but are nevertheless used. The overwhelming majority of IST patients report no improvement or worsening symptoms after using these agents [31].

Ivabradine reduces sinus node firing rate by inhibiting If current. It has the most evidence regarding its usage in IST. In a pooled analysis of 9 prospective studies involving 145 patients, ivabradine significantly reduced resting HR and peak HR, leads to significant improvement in symptoms, and is better tolerated [32].

An observational, non-randomized study with a 1-month follow-up compared ivabradine with metoprolol succinate. Ivabradine resulted in a similar reduction in HR, better symptomatic relief, increased exercise duration and maximal workload, and better safety profile [33].

In a prospective, open-label study involving 40 patients with a follow-up of 24 months, Annamaria et al. [34] compared ivabradine to bisoprolol. Ivabradine was superior to bisoprolol in reducing daytime and night-time mean HR, increasing exercise capacity, and improving quality of life, and as shown in previous studies, was tolerated better.

Ivabradine can be used along with beta-blockers or calcium channel blockers. A combination of ivabradine and metoprolol succinate was better than metoprolol monotherapy in an observational study of twenty IST patients who received metoprolol for 4 weeks followed by the combination therapy for another 4 weeks [35].

Caution is warranted in the co-administration of ivabradine, and calcium channel blockers as verapamil and diltiazem inhibit the CYP3A4 enzyme system, which metabolizes ivabradine [36].

Another non-pharmacological measure found effective in IST is exercise training. Exercise training and beta-blockers increase exercise capacity, reduce average HR, and improve symptoms and overall quality of life [37]. Management of accompanying depression and anxiety may lead to symptom amelioration [18].

6. Invasive

Many patients remain symptomatic even after using all the aforementioned treatment options, or their use is restricted because of the disabling adverse effects. Invasive treatment is reserved after the exhaustion of all the other treatment options.

Various invasive treatment options that have been reported are:

(a) endocardial radiofrequency ablation (RFA) targeted at the sinus node.

(b) combined endo and epicardial ablation of the sinus node.

(c) thoracoscopic epicardial ablation of the sinus node.

(d) sinus node sparing thoracoscopic and endocardial hybrid ablation.

The most commonly used treatment modality with available data to make an informed decision has been endocardial sinus node modification using radiofrequency energy.

In the retrospective study by Shabtaie et al. [31], over a period of 20 years, 55 out of 305 IST patients underwent a sinus node modification procedure. 91% of the procedures were endocardial, and 9% were epicardial RFA procedures. Within 6 months of the procedure, 58% of patients reported any improvement; 66% didn’t report any long-term improvement even with multiple procedures (mean procedures per patient: 1.8 ± 0.9). The mean follow-up of these patients was 4.8 ± 5.2 years. Procedural complications included pacemaker implantation requirement (31%), cardiac perforation (3.6%), acute kidney injury (1.8%), myocardial infarction (1.8%), cerebrovascular event (1.8%), pericardial effusion (1.8%), and deep venous thrombosis (1.8%).

In a systematic review of nine studies that included 153 patients, Rodríguez-Mañero et al. [38] reported acute procedural success in 90%. 86% of patients reported long-term improvement in symptoms. Various complications reported in 8.5% were: phrenic nerve injury, superior vena cava syndrome, arteriovenous fistula, retroperitoneal bleed, cardiac tamponade, right ventricular puncture, and pericarditis [38]. After a mean follow-up of 28.14 ± 12.64 months, 86% of patients reported improvement in symptoms, and 19.6% of patients had a recurrence. 15 patients (10%) underwent pacemaker implantation during the follow-up.

The evidence regarding RFA based sinus node modification in IST so far (Table 1, Ref. [9, 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52]) can be summarized as moderate acute procedural success, minimal long-term benefits, and an increased risk of complications. That is why the HRS expert consensus document [1] (Class III recommendation) and ESC guidelines [29] do not recommend RFA as a routine treatment for IST. It should be reserved for the most symptomatic patients in which all the available conservative therapeutic measures have failed.

Table 1.Studies of invasive treatment in IST.
Study Year Number of patients Type of study Treatment strategy Results Remarks
Shabtaie et al. [31] 2021 55 Single-center retrospective Endocardial RFA SNM (91%) 58% showed improvement in symptoms in 6 months See text for details
case series Epicardial RFA SNM (9%) 5% showed long-term (>6 months) resolution of symptoms
Lakkireddy et al. [39] 2021 100 (82 females) Multicenter prospective 50: Hybrid strategy Restoration of normal sinus rhythm and rate: 100% vs. See text for details
registry 50: endocardial RFA 84%
78% vs. 0% of patients were able to stop their rate-reducing drugs
RFA group was associated with multiple repeat procedures and more adverse effects
Daher et al. [40] 2020 39 (37 females) Single-center retrospective Endocardial RFA based SNM 37 patients had symptom resolution after at least 1 SNM 13 patients required PPM implantation
case series 21 required >1 SNM procedure 2 patients had phrenic nerve injury
13 required postprocedure rate control medications 6 patients had postprocedure pericarditis
Reissmann et al. [41] 2020 3 (all females) Single-center retrospective Endocardial RFA based SNM 100% acute success rate. 1 required PPM implantation after SN ab-
case series 2 of the 3 patients had relief of symptoms after a mean FU of 424 days lation
Aalaei-Andabili et al. [42] 2019 10 (8 females) Single-center retrospective Minimally invasive thoracoscopic 100% acute success rate 1 pericarditis
case series surgery 2 IST recurrences after a median FU of 13 months 1 pulmonary embolism
All patients had recurred after at least 1 88% freedom from reintervention at 6 months No PPM implantation
endocardial RFA based SNM 4 repeat interventions (3 endocardial RFA, 1 minimally invasive surgery)
Khiabani et al. [43] 2019 18 (16 females) Single-center retrospective case series Surgical isolation of sinus node 100% acute success rate 5 patients required PPM implantation on FU
15 patients had recurred after endocardial RFA based SNM No IST recurrence in 17 patients after a mean FU of 11 years 2 patients required RFA for atrial flutter and AT
de Asmundis et al. [44] 2019 50 (41 females; 39 Single-center retrospective Sinus node sparing hybrid thoracoscopic Preablation HR in IST 119 ± 10 bpm Pericarditis was the most common com-
IST, 11 POTS) case series ablation HR on day 1 postablation 65 ± 13 plication (39/50)
After a mean FU of 28 months, 100% of patients had No requirement of PPM during FU
significantly slower HR (74 ± 9 bpm) No phrenic nerve injury
All patients stopped rate-reducing medications during FU
Ibarra-Cortez et al. [45] 2015 13 (all females) Single-center retrospective case series Endocardial RFA based SNM. 100% acute success rate 1 pericardial bleeding which required surgery
Pericardial access in 10 patients for phrenic nerve preservation. 84.6% (11 out of 13) relief of symptoms after a mean FU of 811 days 1 PPM implantation
Jacobson et al. [46] 2014 5 (All females) Single-center retrospective Epicardial SN ablation in patients who 100% acute success rate 3 cases of pericarditis
case series had failed an endocardial approach. 100% relief of symptoms after a FU of 30 months 1 case of RV puncture
3 patients already had a device implanted
Frankel et al. [47] 2012 33 (31 females) Single-center retrospective case series Endocardial RFA based SNM 6 patients (18%) had an IST recurrence after a mean FU of 2 years Non-IST tachycardias were found in 42% before the SNM procedure (most common was AVNRT) and in 27% after the procedure (most common was AT)
4 patients required PPM implantation on FU
Takemoto et al. [48] 2011 6 (3 females) Single-center case series Endocardial RFA based SNM SNM success 100%
1 patient had a recurrence after a mean FU of 29 months
Lin et al. [49] 2007 7 (6 females) Single-center case series Endocardial RFA based SNM SNM success 100% 1 patient required PPM implantation
6 patients had no recurrence over a mean FU of 13 months
Marrouche et al. [50] 2002 39 (35 females) Single-center case series Endocardial RFA based SNM SNM success 100% 1 SVC syndrome
21% had recurrence over a mean FU of 32 months 3 patients presented with atrial tachycar-
None of the patients required PPM implantation after the procedure dia after the procedure
Man et al. [51] 2000 29 (26 females) Single-center case series Endocardial RFA based SNM 76% acute success 1 right diaphragmatic palsy
55% (16) free of symptoms after a mean FU of 32 months 6 patients received a PPM on FU (5 after AVNJ ablation)
Callans et al. [52] 1999 10 (9 females) Single-center, retrospec- Endocardial RFA based SNM 84% (11) acute success in 13 procedures 5 patients had a 30% decrease in SVC-
tive case series, studied 3 (30%) recurrences RA junction diameter
SVC obstruction post RFA for IST No FU data 1 PPM implantation after SN ablation
Lee et al. [9] 1995 16 (15 females) Single center case series Endocardial RFA based SNM (n = 12)/SN 100% acute success Right phrenic nerve palsy (n = 1, tran-
ablation (n = 4) 87% symptom relief at 20 months follow-up sient)
2 recurrences SVC syndrome (n = 1, transient)
4 patients were deemed to be as partial success on FU 3 patients received a PPM
2 patients developed ectopic atrial tachycardia 3 patients had already received a PPM after AVNJ ablation
AT, atrial tachycardia; AVNJ, atrioventricular node junction; AVNRT, atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia; SN, sinus node; SNM, sinus node modification; FU, follow-up; PPM, permanent pacemaker.

Evidence suggests two distinct and dominant sinus nodes in human hearts: a superior sinus node near the SVC and an inferior sinus node near the IVC. So, a procedure for IST will lead to HR control only if sympathetic innervation to both these sinus nodes is interrupted [53].

This concept has led to sinus-node-sparing thoracoscopic isolation of SVC and IVC from the right atrium. This procedure involves thoracoscopic ablation at the SVC-RA junction (sparing the sinus node after identifying it by endocardial three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping), IVC-RA junction, and the third ablation line along crista terminalis connecting these two ablation lines (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Thoracoscopic sinus node sparing ablation strategy. Ablation lesions (red-colored oval circles and straight line) are created at SVC-RA junction, IVC-RA junction, and along crista terminalis by using a bipolar radiofrequency clamping device. If any, the gaps along the crista terminalis ablation line are endocardially ablated (yellow dots).

In 39 consecutive IST patients, who underwent the hybrid procedure, the mean HR decreased from 119 ± 10 bpm before the procedure to 65 ± 13 bpm on the first day post-ablation and was 74 ± 9 bpm at 24 months follow-up. All patients stopped their rate-reducing drugs during the follow-up. The most common complication during the follow-up was pericarditis. None of the patients required pacemaker implantation, and none of the patients developed phrenic nerve injury.

In a multicenter, prospective registry, the hybrid ablation procedure was compared with RFA based endocardial sinus node modification in 100 IST patients. The patients’ mean number of procedures was 1.02 in the hybrid group and 2.44 in the endocardial ablation group. Mean resting HR before the procedure was 122 and 121 bpm, respectively. Mean HR after the procedure, at 12 months follow-up, and after 6-minute walk test at 12 months was 61 vs. 82.9 bpm (p < 0.001), 72 vs. 88 bpm (p < 0.001), and 107 vs. 115 bpm (p = 0.01) [39].

78% of patients in the hybrid group could stop all of their rate-reducing drugs, while none of the patients in the endocardial RFA group was able to do so. Quality of life (QoL) scores showed a significant improvement in both groups, but the hybrid group had better QoL scores than the endocardial RFA group.

The hybrid procedure was associated with significantly more extended ICU stay (1 vs. 0.2 days) and acute pericarditis (92 vs. 48%). The endocardial RFA procedure was associated with a significantly longer non-ICU hospital stay (4.2 vs. 2.9 days), more rehospitalizations during the 12-month follow-up (54 vs. 6%), more right hemidiaphragm stunning (14 vs. 0%), and more permanent pacemaker implantations during the follow-up (50 vs. 4%).

HRS expert consensus document [1] recommends Class III indication for surgical ablation (along with sinus node modification and sympathetic denervation) as a part of routine care for IST patients. Although unlikely to become a part of routine care, for patients with drug-refractory IST, hybrid ablation offers a safer and more effective treatment option than endocardial sinus node modification using radiofrequency energy.

Some of the other treatment options that have been utilized in drug-refractory IST are stellate ganglion block and cardiac sympathetic denervation [54], renal sympathetic denervation [55], surgical ablation of the sinus node [43], thoracoscopic epicardial ablation of the sinus node [42], surgical excision of the sinus node [56], partial cardiac denervation and sinus node modification via right thoracotomy [57].

7. Conclusions

IST is a clinical syndrome with distressing symptoms mainly affecting younger females, is challenging to treat, but has a favorable long-term prognosis. Ivabradine has shown better results and is tolerated better than other rate-reducing drugs. RFA aimed at sinus node modification has dismal results. Sinus node sparing thoracoscopic ablation aimed at isolation of sinus node has shown promising results.

Author contributions

MA, AH, AK were involved in literature search and drafting of the manuscript, BPG and KK approved the draft and were involved in final editions of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Acknowledgment

We would like to express our gratitude to peer reviewers for their opinions and suggestions.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Dr. Kanjwal is the consultant for St Jude Medical and Bio sense webster.

References
[1]
Sheldon RS, Grubb BP, Olshansky B, Shen W, Calkins H, Brignole M, et al. 2015 Heart Rhythm Society Expert Consensus Statement on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Postural Tachycardia Syndrome, Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia, and Vasovagal Syncope. Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12: e41–e63.
[2]
Brady PA, Low PA, Shen WK. Inappropriate sinus tachycardia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and overlapping syndromes. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2005; 28: 1112–1121.
[3]
Still A, Raatikainen P, Ylitalo A, Kauma H, Ikäheimo M, Antero Kesäniemi Y, et al. Prevalence, characteristics and natural course of inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Europace. 2005; 7: 104–112.
[4]
Şimşek E, Ozbay B, Mutlu I, Gurses E, Kemal HS, Yagmur B, et al. Prevalence of the inappropriate sinus tachycardia and comparison of the heart rate variability characteristics with propensity score matched control group. Turk Kardiyol Dernegi Arsivi. 2020; 48: 96–102.
[5]
Shabtaie SA, Witt CM, Asirvatham SJ. Natural history and clinical outcomes of inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2020; 31: 137–143.
[6]
Lopera G, Castellanos A, Moleiro F, Huikuri HV, Myerburg RJ. Chronic inappropriate sinus tachycardia in elderly females. Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology. 2003; 8: 139–143.
[7]
Feigofsky S, Fedorowski A. Defining Cardiac Dysautonomia – Different Syndromes; Case-based Presentations. Journal of Atrial Fibrillation. 2020; 13: 58–65.
[8]
Krahn AD, Yee R, Klein GJ, Morillo C. Inappropriate sinus tachycardia: evaluation and therapy. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 1995; 6: 1124–1128.
[9]
Lee RJ, Kalman JM, Fitzpatrick AP, Epstein LM, Fisher WG, Olgin JE, et al. Radiofrequency Catheter Modification of the Sinus Node for “Inappropriate” Sinus Tachycardia. Circulation. 1995; 92: 2919–2928.
[10]
Baruscotti M, Bianco E, Bucchi A, DiFrancesco D. Current understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for inappropriate sinus tachycardia: role of the if “funny” current. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2016; 46: 19–28.
[11]
Morillo CA, Klein GJ, Thakur RK, Li H, Zardini M, Yee R. Mechanism of ’inappropriate’ sinus tachycardia. Role of sympathovagal balance. Circulation. 1994; 90: 873–877.
[12]
Leon H, Guzman JC, Kuusela T, Dillenburg R, Kamath M, Morillo CA. Impaired baroreflex gain in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2005; 16: 64–68.
[13]
Wising PER. Familial, Congenital Sinus Tachycardia. Acta Medica Scandinavica. 1941; 108: 299–305.
[14]
Baruscotti M, Bucchi A, Milanesi R, Paina M, Barbuti A, Gnecchi-Ruscone T, et al. A gain-of-function mutation in the cardiac pacemaker HCN4 channel increasing cAMP sensitivity is associated with familial Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia. European Heart Journal. 2017; 38: 280–288.
[15]
Chiale PA, Garro HA, Schmidberg J, Sánchez RA, Acunzo RS, Lago M, et al. Inappropriate sinus tachycardia may be related to an immunologic disorder involving cardiac β andrenergic receptors. Heart Rhythm. 2006; 3: 1182–1186.
[16]
Still A, Huikuri HV, Airaksinen KEJ, Koistinen MJ, Kettunen R, Hartikainen J, et al. Impaired negative chronotropic response to adenosine in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2002; 13: 557–562.
[17]
Ho RT, Ortman M, Mather PJ, Rubin S. Inappropriate sinus tachycardia in a transplanted heart–further insights into pathogenesis. Heart Rhythm. 2011; 8: 781–783.
[18]
Olshansky B, Sullivan RM. Inappropriate sinus tachycardia. EP Europace. 2019; 21: 194–207.
[19]
Madrid AH, Mestre JL, Moro C, Vivas E, Tejero I, Novo L, et al. Heart rate variability and inappropriate sinus tachycardia after catheter ablation of supraventricular tachycardia. European Heart Journal. 1995; 16: 1637–1640.
[20]
Pappone C, Stabile G, Oreto G, De Simone A, Rillo M, Mazzone P, et al. Inappropriate sinus tachycardia after radiofrequency ablation of para-Hisian accessory pathways. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 1997; 8: 1357–1365.
[21]
Emkanjoo Z, Alasti M, Arya A, Haghjoo M, Dehghani MR, Fazelifar AF, et al. Heart rate variability: does it change after RF ablation of reentrant supraventricular tachycardia? Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2005; 14: 147–151.
[22]
Brembilla-Perrot B, Sellal J, Olivier A, Manenti V, Beurrier D, de Chillou C, et al. Recurrences of symptoms after AV node re-entrant tachycardia ablation: a clinical arrhythmia risk score to assess putative underlying cause. International Journal of Cardiology. 2015; 179: 292–296.
[23]
Shouman K, Vanichkachorn G, Cheshire WP, Suarez MD, Shelly S, Lamotte GJ, et al. Autonomic dysfunction following COVID-19 infection: an early experience. Clinical Autonomic Research. 2021; 31: 385–394.
[24]
Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. The Lancet. 2021; 397: 220–232.
[25]
Ståhlberg M, Reistam U, Fedorowski A, Villacorta H, Horiuchi Y, Bax J, et al. Post-COVID-19 Tachycardia Syndrome: a Distinct Phenotype of Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome. The American Journal of Medicine. 2021. (in press)
[26]
Johansson M, Ståhlberg M, Runold M, Nygren-Bonnier M, Nilsson J, Olshansky B, et al. Long-Haul Post–COVID-19 Symptoms Presenting as a Variant of Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome. JACC: Case Reports. 2021; 3: 573–580.
[27]
Arano Llach J, Victor Bazan V, Gemma Llados G, Raquel Adelino R, Maria Jesus Dominguez M, Marta Massanella M, et al. Inappropriate sinus tachycardia in post-covid-19 Syndrome. EP Europace. 2021; 23: euab116-114.
[28]
Rubenstein JC, Freher M, Kadish A, Goldberger JJ. Diurnal Heart Rate Patterns in Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2010; 3: 911–919.
[29]
Brugada J, Katritsis DG, Arbelo E, Arribas F, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with supraventricular tachycardiaThe Task Force for the management of patients with supraventricular tachycardia of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. 2020; 41: 655–720.
[30]
Yamabe H, Orita Y. Demonstration of the Anatomical Tachycardia Circuit in Sinoatrial Node Reentrant Tachycardia: Analysis Using the Entrainment Method. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020; 9: e014472.
[31]
Shabtaie SA, Witt CM, Asirvatham SJ. Efficacy of medical and ablation therapy for inappropriate sinus tachycardia: a single‐center experience. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2021; 32: 1053–1061.
[32]
Mathew ST, Po SS, Thadani U. Inappropriate sinus tachycardia-symptom and heart rate reduction with ivabradine: a pooled analysis of prospective studies. Heart Rhythm. 2018; 15: 240–247.
[33]
Ptaszynski P, Kaczmarek K, Ruta J, Klingenheben T, Wranicz JK. Metoprolol succinate vs. ivabradine in the treatment of inappropriate sinus tachycardia in patients unresponsive to previous pharmacological therapy. Europace. 2013; 15: 116–121.
[34]
Martino A, Rebecchi M, Sette A, Cicogna F, Politano A, Sgueglia M, et al. Ivabradine versus bisoprolol in the treatment of inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine. 2021. (in press)
[35]
Ptaszynski P, Kaczmarek K, Ruta J, Klingenheben T, Cygankiewicz I, Wranicz JK. Ivabradine in Combination with Metoprolol Succinate in the Treatment of Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia. Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2013; 18: 338–344.
[36]
Yu J, Zhou Z, Tay-Sontheimer J, Levy RH, Ragueneau-Majlessi I. Risk of Clinically Relevant Pharmacokinetic-Based Drug-Drug Interactions with Drugs Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2013 and 2016. Drug Metabolism and Disposition. 2018; 46: 835–845.
[37]
Ptaszynski P, Urbanek I, Kaczmarek K, Cygankiewicz I, Klingenheben T, Rasmus P, et al. The effect of adjuvant exercise training in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia treated with metoprolol succinate - randomized one year follow up study. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14: S123.
[38]
Rodríguez-Mañero M, Kreidieh B, Al Rifai M, Ibarra-Cortez S, Schurmann P, Álvarez PA, et al. Ablation of Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2017; 3: 253–265.
[39]
Lakkireddy D, Garg J, DeAsmundis C, LaMeier M, Romeya A, Vanmeetren J, et al. Sinus Node Sparing Hybrid Thoracoscopic Ablation Outcomes in Patients with Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia (SUSRUTA-IST) Registry. Heart Rhythm. 2021. (in press)
[40]
Daher G, Rachwan RJ, Hassanieh I, Malhotra N, Bteich F, Diab K, et al. Long-term outcomes of sinus node modification in patients with severely symptomatic drug-refractory inappropriate sinus tachycardia: a single-center experience. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2021; 61: 511–516.
[41]
Reissmann B, Fink T, Schlüter M, Metzner A, Ouyang F, Kuck K. Catheter ablation for inappropriate sinus tachycardia: Clinical outcomes of sinus node ablation. HeartRhythm Case Reports. 2020; 6: 81–85.
[42]
Aalaei‐Andabili SH, Miles WM, Burkart TA, Panna ME, Conti JB, McKillop MS, et al. Minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgery is an effective approach for treating inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2019; 30: 1297–1303.
[43]
Khiabani AJ, Greenberg JW, Hansalia VH, Schuessler RB, Melby SJ, Damiano RJ. Late Outcomes of Surgical Ablation for Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2019; 108: 1162–1168.
[44]
de Asmundis C, Chierchia G, Sieira J, Ströker E, Umbrain V, Poelaert J, et al. Sinus Node Sparing Novel Hybrid Approach for Treatment of Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia/Postural Orthostatic Sinus Tachycardia with New Electrophysiological Finding. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2019; 124: 224–232.
[45]
Ibarra-Cortez SH, Rodríguez-Mañero M, Kreidieh B, Schurmann P, Dave AS, Valderrábano M. Strategies for phrenic nerve preservation during ablation of inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Heart Rhythm. 2016; 13: 1238–1245.
[46]
Jacobson JT, Kraus A, Lee R, Goldberger JJ. Epicardial/endocardial sinus node ablation after failed endocardial ablation for the treatment of inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2014; 25: 236–241.
[47]
Frankel DS, Lin D, Anastasio N, Mountantonakis SE, Dixit S, Gerstenfeld EP, et al. Frequent additional tachyarrhythmias in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia undergoing sinus node modification: an important cause of symptom recurrence. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2012; 23: 835–839.
[48]
Takemoto M, Mukai Y, Inoue S, Matoba T, Nishizaka M, Ide T, et al. Usefulness of non-contact mapping for radiofrequency catheter ablation of inappropriate sinus tachycardia: new procedural strategy and long-term clinical outcome. Internal Medicine. 2012; 51: 357–362.
[49]
Lin D, Garcia F, Jacobson J, Gerstenfeld EP, Dixit S, Verdino R, et al. Use of noncontact mapping and saline-cooled ablation catheter for sinus node modification in medically refractory inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2007; 30: 236–242.
[50]
Marrouche NF, Beheiry S, Tomassoni G, Cole C, Bash D, Dresing T, et al. Three-dimensional nonfluoroscopic mapping and ablation of inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2002; 39: 1046–1054.
[51]
Man KC, Knight B, Tse HF, Pelosi F, Michaud GF, Flemming M, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation of inappropriate sinus tachycardia guided by activation mapping. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2000; 35: 451–457.
[52]
Callans DJ, Ren J, Schwartzman D, Gottlieb CD, Chaudhry FA, Marchlinski FE. Narrowing of the superior vena cava–right atrium junction during radiofrequency catheter ablation for inappropriate sinus tachycardia: analysis with intracardiac echocardiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1999; 33: 1667–1670.
[53]
Brennan JA, Chen Q, Gams A, Dyavanapalli J, Mendelowitz D, Peng W, et al. Evidence of Superior and Inferior Sinoatrial Nodes in the Mammalian Heart. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2020; 6: 1827–1840.
[54]
Cha Y, Li X, Yang M, Han J, Wu G, Kapa SC, et al. Stellate ganglion block and cardiac sympathetic denervation in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2019; 30: 2920–2928.
[55]
Kiuchi MG, Souto HB, Kiuchi T, Chen S. Case Report: Renal Sympathetic Denervation as a Tool for the Treatment of Refractory Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia. Medicine. 2015; 94: e2094.
[56]
Esmailzadeh B, Bernat R, Winkler K, Meybehm M, Pfeiffer D, Kirchhoff PG. Surgical excision of the sinus node in a patient with inappropriate sinus tachycardia. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 1997; 114: 861–864.
[57]
Taketani T, Wolf RK, Garrett JV. Partial Cardiac Denervation and Sinus Node Modification for Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2007; 84: 652–654.
Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Share
Back to top