Key result
Active dual-chamber pacing with closed loop stimulation cuts syncope recurrence ~77% vs inactive pacing.
Why the study?
The benefit of cardiac pacing in patients with severe recurrent reflex syncope and tilt-induced asystole has not been established, and the usefulness of tilt-table testing to select candidates is controversial.
Does active dual-chamber pacing with closed loop stimulation reduce the recurrence of syncope in patients aged 40 years or older with severe recurrent reflex syncope and tilt-induced asystole?
RCT (n=127)
Double-blind
Randomized
Does active dual-chamber pacing with closed loop stimulation reduce the recurrence of syncope in patients aged 40 years or older with severe recurrent reflex syncope and tilt-induced asystole?
In patients aged ≥40 years with severe recurrent reflex syncope and tilt-induced asystole, dual-chamber pacing with closed loop stimulation significantly reduced syncope recurrence.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports closed-loop dual-chamber pacing in recurrent reflex syncope with tilt-induced asystole; extends randomized evidence for device therapy in this population.
AIM: The benefit of cardiac pacing in patients with severe recurrent reflex syncope and asystole induced by tilt testing has not been established. The usefulness of tilt-table test to select candidates for cardiac pacing is controversial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years or older who had at least two episodes of unpredictable severe reflex syncope during the last year and a tilt-induced syncope with an asystolic pause longer than 3 s, to receive either an active (pacing ON; 63 patients) or an inactive (pacing OFF; 64 patients) dual-chamber pacemaker with closed loop stimulation (CLS). The primary endpoint was the time to first recurrence of syncope. Patients and independent outcome assessors were blinded to the assigned treatment. After a median follow-up of 11.2 months, syncope occurred in significantly fewer patients in the pacing group than in the control group [10 (16%) vs. 34 (53%); hazard ratio, 0.23; P = 0.00005]. The estimated syncope recurrence rate at 1 year was 19% (pacing) and 53% (control) and at 2 years, 22% (pacing) and 68% (control). A combined endpoint of syncope or presyncope occurred in significantly fewer patients in the pacing group [23 (37%) vs. 40 (63%); hazard ratio, 0.44; P = 0.002]. Minor device-related adverse events were reported in five patients (4%). CONCLUSION: In patients aged 40 years or older, affected by severe recurrent reflex syncope and tilt-induced asystole, dual-chamber pacemaker with CLS is highly effective in reducing the recurrences of syncope. Our findings support the inclusion of tilt testing as a useful method to select candidates for cardiac pacing. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02324920, Eudamed number CIV-05-013546.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brignole et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Severe recurrent reflex syncope and tilt-induced asystole (n=127). Active dual-chamber pacemaker with closed loop stimulation (pacing ON) vs. Inactive dual-chamber pacemaker with closed loop stimulation (pacing OFF) was evaluated on Time to first recurrence of syncope (HR 0.23, p=0.00005). Active dual-chamber pacing with closed loop stimulation reduced the recurrence of syncope compared to inactive pacing.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: