Key result
Permanent pacemaker implantation was associated with a lower incidence of recurrent syncope compared to no pacemaker (4.4% vs 24.8%, p<0.001) in patients with EPS-proven AV node disease.
Why the study?
Syncope of unknown cause after initial assessment has an uncertain prognosis, prompting this evaluation of permanent pacing's effect on syncope incidence in patients with unexplained syncope and EPS-proven AV node disease.
Does permanent pacemaker implantation reduce recurrent syncope in patients with unexplained syncope and EPS-proven AV node disease?
Observational (n=236)
No
Does permanent pacemaker implantation reduce recurrent syncope in patients with unexplained syncope and EPS-proven AV node disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.4% vs 24.8%
p-value: p=<0.001
Permanent pacing significantly reduces syncope recurrence in patients with unexplained syncope who have EPS-proven AV node disease.
May support PPM consideration in EPS-proven AV node disease with syncope; leaves open need for RCTs before practice change.
OBJECTIVE: Syncope, whose cause is unknown after an initial assessment, has an uncertain prognosis. It is critical to identify patients at the highest risk who may require a pacemaker and to identify the cause of recurrent syncope to prescribe proper therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of permanent pacing on the incidence of syncope in patients with unexplained syncope and electrophysiology study (EPS)-proven atrioventricular (AV) node disease. METHODS: This was an observational study based on a prospective registry of 236 consecutive patients (60.20 ± 18.66 years, 63.1% male, 60.04 ± 9.50 bpm) presenting with recurrent unexplained syncope attacks admitted to our hospital for invasive EPS. The decision to implant a permanent pacemaker was made in all cases by the attending physicians according to the results of the EPS. A total of 135 patients received the antibradycardia pacemaker (ABP), while 101 patients were declined. RESULTS: The mean of reported syncope episodes was 1.97 ± 1.10 (or presyncope 2.17 ± 1.50) before they were referred for a combined EP-guided diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Over a mean follow-up of approximately 4 years (49.19 ± 29.58 months), the primary outcome event (syncope) occurred in 31 of 236 patients (13.1%), and 6 of 135 (4.4%) patients in the ABP group as compared to 25 of 101 (24.8%) in the no pacemaker group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among patients with a history of unexplained syncope, a set of positivity criteria for the presence of EPS-defined AV node disease identifies a subset of patients who will benefit from permanent pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Doundoulakis et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Unexplained syncope and EPS-proven atrioventricular node disease (n=236). Permanent pacemaker implantation vs. No pacemaker was evaluated on Syncope (p=<0.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation was associated with a lower incidence of recurrent syncope compared to no pacemaker (4.4% vs 24.8%, p<0.001) in patients with EPS-proven AV node disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: