Key result
Dual-chamber permanent pacing fails to reduce falls versus placebo in carotid sinus hypersensitivity.
Why the study?
Uncertainty remains over the role of complex pacing in patients with carotid sinus hypersensitivity and unexplained or recurrent falls.
Does dual-chamber permanent pacing reduce the number of falls in older patients with carotid sinus hypersensitivity and recurrent falls?
RCT (n=34)
Double-blind
Randomised crossover
Does dual-chamber permanent pacing reduce the number of falls in older patients with carotid sinus hypersensitivity and recurrent falls?
Relative Risk: 0.82 (95% CI 0.62–1.1)
Absolute Event Rate: 4.04% vs 3.48%
Dual-chamber permanent pacing does not reduce the rate of falls in older patients with carotid sinus hypersensitivity and recurrent unexplained falls.
Avoid pacing for fall prevention in carotid sinus hypersensitivity; confirms no benefit in this RCT.
OBJECTIVES: While carotid sinus syndrome (CSS) is traditionally defined by the association of carotid sinus hypersensitivity (CSH) with syncope, uncertainty remains over the role, if any, of complex pacing in patients with CSH and unexplained or recurrent falls. We sought to clarify the role of dual chamber pacing in this patient group in the first placebo-controlled study in CSH. DESIGN: Randomised, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Specialist falls and syncope facility. PATIENTS: Consecutive subjects aged over 55 years with CSH as the sole attributable cause of three or more unexplained falls in the 6 months preceding enrolment. INTERVENTION: Dual-chamber permanent pacing with rate-drop response programming. The pacemaker was switched on (DDD/RDR) or off (ODO (placebo)) for 6 months, then crossed over to the alternate mode for a further 6 months, in randomised, double-blind fashion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was number of falls in paced and non-paced modes. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 34 subjects (mean 76.8 years (SD 9.0), 27 (79%) female) recruited completed the study. Pacing intervention had no effect on number of falls (4.04 (9.54) in DDD/RDR mode, 3.48 (7.22) in ODO; relative risk of falling in ODO mode 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.10). CONCLUSION: Permanent pacing intervention had no effect on fall rates in older patients with CSH. Further work is urgently needed to clarify the role, if any, of complex pacing in this patient group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parry et al. (2009) conducted an RCT in Carotid sinus hypersensitivity with recurrent falls (n=34). Dual-chamber permanent pacing with rate-drop response programming vs. Pacemaker switched off (ODO mode/placebo) was evaluated on Number of falls (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62-1.10). Dual-chamber permanent pacing had no effect on the number of falls compared to placebo in older patients with carotid sinus hypersensitivity (mean 4.04 vs 3.48 falls; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62-1.10).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: