Key result
Empiric pacing in patients with bifascicular block and syncope was associated with a 27% rate of syncope recurrence, compared to 0% in those paced after positive EPS or documented AVB (P=0.02).
Why the study?
Does EPS/ILR-guided pacing reduce syncope recurrence compared to empiric pacing in patients with bifascicular block and unexplained syncope?
Population
43 consecutive patients with bifascicular block and unexplained syncope who received a pacemaker, mean age…
Comparison
Cardiac pacing guided by positive… vs Empiric cardiac pacing (n=26)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 31 ± 21 months
Authors
Loading...
Caution against empiric pacing in bifascicular block syncope; leaves open whether EPS/ILR guidance reduces recurrence in prospective trials.
Cohort (n=43)
Does EPS/ILR-guided pacing reduce syncope recurrence compared to empiric pacing in patients with bifascicular block and unexplained syncope?
Absolute Event Rate: 27% vs 0%
p-value: p=0.02
In patients with bifascicular block and unexplained syncope, empiric pacing is associated with a 27% syncope recurrence rate, whereas pacing guided by EPS or ILR monitoring prevents recurrences.
Kalscheur et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Bifascicular block and unexplained syncope (n=43). Empiric pacing vs. Pacing following positive EPS or documented AVB was evaluated on Syncope recurrence (p=0.02). Empiric pacing in patients with bifascicular block and syncope was associated with a 27% rate of syncope recurrence, compared to 0% in those paced after positive EPS or documented AVB (P=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: