Key result
Closed loop stimulation (CLS) pacing appears superior to conventional pacing for refractory vasovagal syncope based on a review of 12 studies, though large randomized trials are needed.
Why the study?
Does closed loop stimulation (CLS) pacing improve outcomes compared to conventional pacing in patients with refractory vasovagal syncope?
Does closed loop stimulation (CLS) pacing improve outcomes compared to conventional pacing in patients with refractory vasovagal syncope?
While closed loop stimulation pacing has emerged as a potential strategy for refractory vasovagal syncope, its efficacy remains debated and requires validation through large randomized controlled trials.
May support CLS pacing in refractory vasovagal syncope; leaves open efficacy pending large RCTs.
Vasovagal syncope (VVS) or neurocardiogenic syncope is defined by transient loss of consciousness with spontaneous and rapid recovery. Recently, a closed loop stimulation (CLS) pacing system has emerged as a new strategy which appears superior to conventional pacing for patients with refractory syncope. However, its efficacy remains of considerable debate and large randomized controlled clinical trials are needed. Between 2002 and 2017, 12 total studies evaluated the use of CLS pacing in patients with refractory VVS, and are summarized in this article.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruzieh et al. (2017) conducted a review in Vasovagal syncope (VVS). Closed loop stimulation (CLS) pacing vs. Conventional pacing was evaluated. Closed loop stimulation (CLS) pacing appears superior to conventional pacing for refractory vasovagal syncope based on a review of 12 studies, though large randomized trials are needed.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: