The effect of dual-chamber closed-loop stimulation on syncope recurrence in healthy patients with tilt-induced vasovagal cardioinhibitory syncope: a prospective, randomised, single-blind, crossover study

Therapeutic options for neurocardiogenic syncope: a meta-analysis of randomised trials with and without blinding

BACKGROUND

Neurocardiogenic syncope is a common condition with significant associated psychological and physical morbidity. The effectiveness of therapeutic options for neurocardiogenic syncope beyond placebo remains uncertain.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was the risk ratio (RR) of spontaneously recurring syncope following any therapeutic intervention. We also examined the effect of blinding on treatment efficacy. We identified all randomised trials which evaluated the effect of any pharmacological, device-based or supportive intervention on patients with a history of syncope. A systematic search was conducted on Medline, Embase, PubMed databases and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials from 1950 to 25 April 2023. Event rates, their RRs and 95% CIs were calculated, and a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for each intervention. Data analysis was performed in R using RStudio.

RESULTS

We identified 47 eligible trials randomising 3518 patients. Blinded trials assessing syncope recurrence were neutral for beta blockers, fludrocortisone and conventional dual-chamber pacing but were favourable for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.63, p<0.001), midodrine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94, p=0.016) and closed-loop stimulation (CLS) pacing (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35, p<0.001). Unblinded trials reported significant benefits for all therapy categories other than beta blockers and consistently showed larger benefits than blinded trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Under blinded conditions, SSRIs, midodrine and CLS pacing significantly reduced syncope recurrence. Future trials for syncope should be blinded to avoid overestimating treatment effects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022330148.

Pacemaker Implants and Their Influence on the Daily Life of Patients with Dementia with Lewy Bodies: A Qualitative Case Study

INTRODUCTION

Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is an incurable form of dementia associated with detriments to the daily life of patients and carers from their family. Symptoms of orthostatic hypotension, syncope, and falls are supportive of DLB diagnosis. These symptoms may also be present among people with sick sinus syndrome (SSS), and subsequent pacemaker treatment to manage bradyarrhythmia is associated with improved cognitive function. The prevalence of SSS seems to be higher among people with underlying Lewy body pathology compared to the general age-matched population (5.2% vs. 0.17%). To our knowledge, how people with DLB and their family carers may experience pacemaker treatment to manage bradyarrhythmia has not been previously reported. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore how people with DLB experience daily life following a pacemaker implant to manage associated symptoms of bradyarrhythmia.

METHODS

A qualitative case study design was used. Two men with DLB and their spouse carers were repeatedly interviewed as a dyad within 1 year following implant of a dual-chamber rate-adaptive (DDD-CLS) pacemaker to manage SSS in the men. Content analysis was used to assess the qualitative interview data collected.

RESULTS

Three categories emerged: (1) gaining control, (2) maintaining a social life, and (3) being influenced by concurrent diseases. Less syncope/falls and remote pacemaker monitoring increased a sense of control in everyday life, while perceived physical and/or cognitive improvements influenced social participation. The men were still affected by concurrent diseases, which continuously influenced each couple's daily life.

CONCLUSION

Identifying and managing concurrent bradyarrhythmia through a pacemaker implant could improve well-being for people with DLB.

Vasovagal Syncope at Work: A Narrative Review for an Occupational Management Proposal

Syncope is a complex clinical manifestation that presents considerable diagnostic difficulties and, consequently, numerous critical issues regarding fitness for work, especially for high-risk tasks. To date, it is impossible to quantify the exact impact of syncope on work and public safety since it is highly improbable to identify loss of consciousness as the fundamental cause of work or driving-related accidents, especially fatal injuries. Working at high-risk jobs such as public transport operators, in high elevations, or with exposure to moving parts, construction equipment, fireworks, or explosives demand attention and total awareness. Currently, no validated criteria or indicators are available for occupational risk stratification of a patient with reflex syncope to return to work. By drawing inspiration from the updated literature, this narrative review intends to summarise the leading knowledge required regarding the return to work for subjects affected by syncope. According to the available data, the authors highlighted some key findings, summarised in macro-items, such as defined risk stratification for vasovagal accidents, return to work after a critical event, and a focus on pacemaker (PM) implementation. Lastly, the authors proposed a flowchart for occupational physicians to help them manage the cases of workers affected by syncope and exposed to levels of risk that could represent a danger to the workers' health.

The clinical presentation of syncope influences the head-up tilt test responses

INTRODUCTION

Little is still known about the positivity rate of nitroglycerin (NTG) potentiated head-up tilt test (HUTT) according to the history-based clinical features of syncope. The study aimed to compare the HUTT positivity rate and type of responses in patients with classical and non-classical vasovagal syncope (VVS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients who underwent NTG-potentiated HUTT for VVS. The study population was dichotomized into classical and non-classical VVS.

RESULTS

A total of 1285 VVS patients (45± 19.1 years; 49.6% male) were enrolled: 627 (48.8%) had a history of classical VVS and 658 (51.2%) of non-classical VVS. HUTT was positive in 866 (67.4%) patients. The positivity rate was significantly higher in patients with classical compared to those with non-classical VVS (81.5% vs 54%; P< 0.0001). Cardioinhibitory response showed similar total positivity rate (27.6% vs 31%; P= 0.17), but higher relative prevalence among positive tests (57.7% vs 33.9%, P< 0.0001) in patients with non-classical VVS. At multivariable analysis, classical reflex syncope, male sex, history of traumatic syncope and use of diuretics were independent predictors of HUTT positivity.

CONCLUSION

The clinical presentation of syncope influences the overall HUTT positivity rate and the type of responses. Cardioinhibitory response and traumatic syncope are more likely in patients with non-classical VVS.

Cardioinhibitory syncope with asystole during nitroglycerin potentiated head up tilt test: prevalence and clinical predictors

Aims

The aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence and clinical predictors of cardioinhibitory (CI) responses with asystole at the nitroglycerin (NTG)-potentiated head-up tilt test (HUTT) in patients with a history of syncope admitted to a tertiary referral syncope unit.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients who underwent NTG-potentiated HUTT for suspected reflex syncope at our institution from March 1 2017 to May 1 2020. The prevalence of HUTT-induced CI syncope was assessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to test the association of asystolic response to HUTT with a set of clinical covariates.

Results

We enrolled 1285 patients (45 ± 19.1 years; 49.6% male); 368 (28.6%) showed HUTT-induced CI response with asystole. A multivariate analysis revealed that the following factors were independently associated with HUTT-induced CI syncope: male sex (OR 1.48; ConInt 1.14–1.92; P = 0.003), smoking (OR 2.22; ConInt 1.56–3.115; P < 0.001), traumatic syncope (OR: 2.81; ConInt 1.79–4.42; P < 0.001), situational syncope (OR 0.45; ConInt 0.27–0.73; P = 0.002), and the use of diuretics (OR 9.94; ConInt 3.83–25.76; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The cardioinhibitory syncope with asystole induced by NTG-potentiated HUTT is more frequent than previously reported. The male gender, smoking habit, history of traumatic syncope, and use of diuretics were independent predictors of HUTT-induced CI responses. Conversely, the history of situational syncope seems to reduce this probability.

Why is the Tilt Table Test Still Useful to Define who Should or Should Not Get A Pacemaker with Vasovagal Syncope?

The the tilt table test (TTT )has been used identify appropriate candidates for pacing in the majority of randomized trials. However, in recent years, it has been claimed-based largely on International Study on Syncope of Uncertain Etiology (ISSUE) studies-that the TTT demonstrates only a weak correlation with the mechanism documented by implantable loop recorder (ILR) at the time of syncope and thus confounds the correct diagnosis. Thus, cardiac pacing was supported in patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope (VVS) in whom clinically relevant asystole had been documented by ILR. In the present Editorial, we tried to discuss potential role of TTT in diagnostic workflow of VVS based on current data.

Cardiac Pacing in Cardioinhibitory Reflex Syncope: Clinical Use of Closed-loop Stimulation

Cardiac pacing has been studied extensively in patients with reflex syncope over the past two decades. The heterogeneity of the forms and clinical manifestations of reflex syncope explain the controversial results of older randomised clinical trials. New evidence from recent trials has changed medical practice, now leading to clear indications for pacing in patients with asystolic syncope documented during carotid sinus massage, implantable cardiac monitoring or tilt testing. Given that recent trials in reflex syncope have been performed using the closed-loop stimulation algorithm, the authors will briefly discuss this pacing mode, review hypotheses about the mechanisms underlying its activation during syncope and provide practical instructions for programming and troubleshooting.

Causes of syncopal recurrences in patients treated with permanent pacing for bradyarrhythmic syncope: Findings from the SYNCOPACED registry

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the causes of syncope/collapse recurrences in patients with a previously implanted pacemaker for bradyarrhythmic syncope.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the causes of syncope/collapse recurrences after pacemaker implantation for bradyarrhythmic syncope in a large patient population.

METHODS

The SYNCOpal recurrences in patients treated with permanent PACing for bradyarrhythmic syncope (SYNCOPACED) registry was a prospective multicenter observational registry enrolling 1364 consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation for bradyarrhythmic syncope. During follow-up, the time to the first syncope/collapse recurrence was recorded. Patients with syncope/collapse recurrences underwent a predefined diagnostic workup aimed at establishing the mechanism of syncope/collapse.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 50 months, 213 patients (15.6%) reported at least 1 syncope/collapse recurrence. The risk of syncope/collapse recurrence was highest in patients who underwent implantation for cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope (26.4%), followed by unexplained syncope and chronic bifascicular block (21.5%), cardioinhibitory carotid sinus syndrome (17.2%), atrial fibrillation needing pacing (15.5%), atrioventricular block (13.6%), and sinus node disease (12.5%) (P = .017). The most frequent cause of syncope/collapse recurrence was reflex syncope (27.7%), followed by orthostatic hypotension (26.3%), pacemaker or lead malfunction (5.6%), structural cardiac disease (5.2%), and atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias (4.7% and 3.8%, respectively). In 26.8% of cases, the mechanism of syncope/collapse remained unexplained.

CONCLUSION

In patients receiving a pacemaker for bradyarrhythmic syncope, reflex syncope and orthostatic hypotension are the most frequent mechanisms of syncope/collapse recurrence after implantation. Pacing system malfunction, structural cardiac diseases, and tachyarrhythmias are rare mechanisms. The mechanism remains unexplained in >25% of patients.

Pacing Therapies for Vasovagal Syncope

Vasovagal Syncope (VVS) is mediated by a cardiac autonomic reflex with resultant bradycardia and hypotension, precipitating syncope. While benign and mostly well controlled, recurrent VVS can be debilitating and warrants intervention. Non-pharmacological management of VVS have had variable success. In patients with recurrent cardioinhibitory VVS, permanent pacing can be effective. The utility of pacing to preempt the syncopal depends on the prominent temporal role of bradycardia during the vasovagal reflex. Current guidelines recommend pacing as a therapy to consider in older patients with recurrent VVS. Although younger patients can benefit, one should be cautious given the long-term risk of complications. Available data appears to favor a dual chamber pacemaker with closed loop stimulation algorithm to prevent recurrent cardioinhibitory VVS. Several aspects, including mechanistic understanding of VVS and appropriate patient selection, remain unclear, and require further study.

A case report of one vasovagal syncope patient with third-degree atrioventricular block caused by SCN5A gene mutation and literature review

BACKGROUND

Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is common in children and significantly affects their quality of life. To our knowledge, this the first case report of SCN5A gene mutation associated with VVS and third-degree atrioventricular block (atrioventricular block, AVB), which could help pediatricians aware that VVS is not always a benign condition and help to identify VVS children at the risk of sudden death.

CASE PRESENTATION

A twelve-year-old male child was admitted to Beijing Children's Hospital of Capital Medical University for chest tightness for 9 days and syncope in July 2018. The child was diagnosed as VVS with third-degree AVB after complete investagations. A heterozygous mutation in the exon coding region of the SCN5A gene, C. 5851G > T (coding region 5551 nucleotide changed from G to T), was detected in the peripheral blood of the child. Electrophysiological examination and modified vagal ganglion radiofrequency ablation were performed in the child. The ECG playback was normal on the second day after operation. Holter showed no abnormality and no chest tightness or syncope occurred after 3 months and 1 year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case report firstly reported that SCN5A mutation contributed to the pathogenesis of VVS with third-degree AVB. Vagal ganglion modified ablation have obtained good therapeutic effect. Gene analysis was of great value to the accurate diagnosis and treatment of VVS children.

Pacing for Patients Suffering From Cardioinhibitory Vasovagal Syncope Using the Closed-Loop System

One in three vasovagal syncope (VVS) patients has syncopal recurrence after diagnosis, despite the standard recommendations for the avoidance of a recurrence, and one in five patients has more than one syncopal recurrence in the medium term. Given the high prevalence of VVS, there is a large population that continues to need effective treatment. There are numerous studies that use the implantable loop recorder (ILR) to document a cardioinhibitory response during VVS, with one study, ISSUE-3, demonstrating the efficacy of pacing using the rate-drop-response algorithm to trigger pacing and prevent syncopal recurrence in this population. There are more uncertainties in the studies that have used head-up tilt test (HUT) to select the population for pacing. We have recently performed the SPAIN randomized, controlled clinical trial using HUT to select the patients for pacing. The conclusion of the study was that, with the closed-loop system to introduce pacing, there was a significant reduction in the burden of syncope and a seven-fold increase in the time to first recurrence of syncope, which was greater than in the ISSUE-3 study. Since the completion of the SPAIN trial and its inclusion in the European guidelines, in our daily clinical practice, the use of this therapy is still recommended with caution in the context of the available literature, but it has increased our confidence in so doing. One in five patients with VVS needs treatment because of a high syncopal load. If an ILR is used to select the patients for pacing, the rate-drop-response algorithm can be recommended. In patients who have asystole on HUT, pacing with the closed-loop system has higher success and must now be considered as a tenable option for VVS patients.

Pacing in vasovagal syncope: Physiology, pacemaker sensors, and recent clinical trials-Precise patient selection and measurable benefit

The role of pacing in vasovagal syncope (VVS) is considered from a physiological basis. Most VVS patients lose consciousness due to hypotension before severe bradycardia/asystole occurs. Patients who benefit from dual-chamber pacing typically are older with highly symptomatic, late-onset, frequent and severe syncope with short/no prodrome and documented severe cardioinhibition. Tilt testing is of value in patients with recurrent unexplained syncope to identify important hypotensive susceptibility stemming from reduced venous return and stroke volume (SV). A negative tilt test in vasovagal patients with spontaneous asystole documented by an implantable/insertable loop recorder is associated with lower syncope recurrence rates after pacemaker implantation. Pacing may be more effective if triggered by sensor detection of a parameter changing earlier in the reflex than bradycardia when SV may still be relatively preserved. In this regard, detection of right ventricular impedance offers promise. Conservatism is recommended, limiting pacing in VVS to a small subset of symptomatic older patients with clearly documented cardioinhibition and paying particular attention to the timing of loss of consciousness in relation to asystole/bradycardia. Understanding VVS physiology permits application of well-timed, appropriate pacing that yields benefit for highly symptomatic patients.

Effective Pacing Intervention by Closed-loop Stimulation Using a Coronary Vein Lead in a Post-tricuspid Valve Replacement Patient

To avoid the negative effects associated with pacing, pacemakers are designed to achieve a pacing cadence as close to physiological pacing as possible. In closed-loop stimulation (CLS; a type of rate-responsive functionality used in pacemakers), the changes in impedance (which correlates with the contractility of the myocardium around the lead tip electrode) are tracked, and the paced heart rate is adjusted accordingly. We herein report a case in which we implanted a pacemaker in a post-tricuspid valve replacement patient. A ventricular lead positioned in the coronary vein exhibited good CLS functionality, and the patient's dizziness and heart failure improved.

Diagnostic and therapeutic approach to cardioinhibitory reflex syncope: A complex and controversial issue

Syncope is defined as a transient loss of consciousness due to global cerebral hypoperfusion and is one of the leading causes of emergency department admission. The initial approach should focus on excluding non-syncopal causes for loss of consciousness and risk stratification for cardiac cause, in order to ensure an appropriate etiological investigation and therapeutic approach. Vasovagal syncope (VVS), the most common type of syncope, should be assumed once other causes are excluded. Pathophysiologically, the vasovagal reflex is the result of a paradoxical autonomic response, leading to hypotension and/or bradycardia. VVS has not been shown to affect mortality, but morbidity may be considerable in those with recurrent syncopal episodes. The management of VVS includes both non-pharmacological and pharmacological measures that act on various levels of the reflex arc that triggers the syncopal episode. However, most are of uncertain benefit given the scarcity of high-quality supporting evidence. Pacemaker therapy may be considered in recurrent refractory cardioinhibitory reflex syncope, for which it is currently considered a robust intervention, as noted in the European guidelines. Non-randomized and unblinded studies have shown a potential benefit of pacing in recurrent VVS, but double-blinded randomized controlled trials have not consistently demonstrated positive results. We performed a comprehensive review of the current literature and recent advances in cardiac pacing and pacing algorithms in VVS, and discuss the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to the complex patient with recurrent VVS and reduced quality of life.

Closed-looped stimulation cardiac pacing for recurrent vasovagal syncope: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is defined by transient loss of consciousness with spontaneous rapid recovery. Recently, a closed-loop stimulation pacing system (CLS) has shown superior effectiveness to conventional pacing in refractory VVS. However, systematic review and meta-analysis has not been performed. We assessed the impact of CLS implantation and reduction in recurrent VVS events by a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to September 2017. Included studies were published prospective or retrospective cohort, randomized controlled trial, and case-control studies that compared VVS events between recurrent, severe, or refractory cardioinhibitory VVS patient implanted with CLS and conventional pacing. Data from each study were combined using the random-effects, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Six studies from November 2004 to October 2017 were included in this meta-analysis involving 224 recurrent, severe, or refractory cardioinhibitory VVS patients implanted with CLS and 163 recurrent, severe, or refractory VVS patients implanted with conventional pacing. CLS significantly reduced recurrent VVS events compared to conventional pacing (pooled odds ratio = 0.23, 95% confidence interval: 0.13-0.39, P = 0.000, I 2 = 36.5%) as well as subgroup of four randomized controlled trial studies (pooled odds ratio = 0.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.17-0.44, P = 0.000, I 2 = 39.2%).

CONCLUSION

Closed-loop stimulation significantly reduced recurrent VVS events up to 80% when compared to conventional pacing. Our study suggests that CLS is an effective tool for preventing syncope recurrences in patients with recurrent, severe, or refractory cardioinhibitory VVS.

Pacing for Vasovagal Syncope

Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is due to a common autonomic reflex involving the cardiovascular system. It is associated with bradycardia (cardioinhibitory response) and/or hypotension (vasodepressor response), likely mediated by parasympathetic activation and sympathetic inhibition. While generally a situational, isolated and/or self-limited event, for some, VVS is recurrent, unpredictable and debilitating. Conservative, non-pharmacological management may help, but no specific medical therapy has been proven widely effective. Permanent pacing may have specific benefit, but its value has been debated. The temporal causative association of bradycardia with syncope in those with VVS may help identify which patient could benefit from pacing but the timing and type of pacing in lieu of blood pressure changes may be critical. The mode, rate, pacing algorithm and time to initiate dual-chamber pacing preferentially with respect to the vasovagal reflex may be important to prevent or ameliorate the faint but completely convincing data are not yet available. Based on available data, DDD pacing with the closed loop stimulation algorithm appears a viable, if not the best, alternative presently to prevent recurrent VVS episodes. While several knowledge gaps remain, permanent pacing appears to have a role in managing select patients with VVS.

Vasovagal syncope-role of closed loop stimulation pacing

The benefit of conventional pacing in vasovagal syncope remains controversial and is currently recommended for patients with recurrent syncope and documented asystole. In the last two decades, a growing body of evidence has emerged supporting the use of a new sensing technique called closed loop stimulation or CLS, to treat refractory vasovagal syncope. CLS uses a sensing algorithm that can detect variation in cardiac contractility and respond to drop in blood pressure by increasing the heart rate. Multiple observational and randomized studies have assessed its efficacy and showed its superiority to conventional pacing in reducing the burden of syncopal attacks in patients with cardio-inhibitory vasovagal syncope.

Autonomic Dysfunction in Cardiology: Pathophysiology, Investigation, and Management

Presyncope and syncope are common medical findings, with a > 40% estimated lifetime prevalence. These conditions are often elicited by postural stress and can be recurrent and accompanied by debilitating symptoms of cerebral hypoperfusion. Therefore, it is critical for physicians to become familiar with the diagnosis and treatment of common underlying causes of presyncope and syncope. In some patients, altered postural hemodynamic responses result from a failure of compensatory autonomic nervous system reflex mechanisms. The most common presentations of presyncope and syncope secondary to this autonomic dysfunction include vasovagal syncope, neurogenic orthostatic hypotension, and postural tachycardia syndrome. The most sensitive method for diagnosis is a detailed initial evaluation with medical history, physical examination, and resting electrocardiogram to rule out cardiac syncope. Physical examination should include measurement of supine and standing blood pressure and heart rate to identify the pattern of hemodynamic regulation during orthostatic stress. Additional testing may be required in patients without a clear diagnosis after the initial evaluation. Management of patients should focus on improving symptoms and functional status and not targeting arbitrary hemodynamic values. An individualized structured and stepwise approach should be taken for treatment, starting with patient education, lifestyle modifications, and use of physical counter-pressure manoeuvres and devices to improve venous return. Pharmacologic interventions should be added only when conservative approaches are insufficient to improve symptoms. There are no gold standard approaches for pharmacologic treatment in these conditions, with medications often used off label and with limited long-term data for effectiveness.

Should we treat severe vasovagal syncope with a pacemaker?

Cardiac pacing for vasovagal syncope (VVS) addresses the cardioinhibitory component of the reflex but cannot directly affect vasodepression, which occurs in every reflex even when hidden by dominant cardioinhibition. The randomized controlled trials of pacing in VVS have, after almost 2 decades, determined that a small number of patients can benefit because their vasodepressor component is not severe. Early studies compared pacing with no therapy yielding highly significant benefits. Subsequently, all study patients had implanted devices with half being switched off. No benefit was seen. The ISSUE-3 study found significant benefit (P < 0.039) in prevention of syncope recurrence in older patients. A sub-study later showed those with negative tilt tests, otherwise indistinguishable from tilt-positives, had 5% recurrence in 21 months (P < 0.004). There is acceptance that pacing must be dual chamber, but the question of how pacing is delivered remains open. Relying on falling heart rate is insufficient, probably because it occurs too late. Other algorithms which indirectly detect neuroendocrine changes earlier than heart rate fall may have useful application. In clinical terms, the patient to be considered for pacing should not be young and have severe symptoms. Ideally, tilt testing should be negative implying vasodepression of lesser severity and, therefore, yielding fewer syncope recurrences. When selecting pacing, additional concern must be given to regression to the mean of symptoms, severe to less severe. Patients seek help when they are at their worst. Moreover, many years of pacing are unlikely to be free of complications related to implanted hardware.

Benefit of dual-chamber pacing with Closed Loop Stimulation in tilt-induced cardio-inhibitory reflex syncope (BIOSync trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The efficacy of dual-chamber cardiac pacing in neuro-mediated reflex syncope with a cardio-inhibitory response to the Tilt-Table test (TT) has not been definitively assessed so far. The lack of reproducibility of results from previous studies may be partially explained by discrepancies in subject selection and some weaknesses in design and methods. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has set a class IIb indication to pacemaker implantation in this population recommending further research.

Methods/design

The BIOSync study is a multicenter, patient- and outcome-assessor-blind, randomized, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled trial with the objective of assessing the clinical benefit of cardiac pacing in patients with frequently recurrent reflex syncope, suspected (but not proven) to be triggered by asystolic pauses as showing a VASIS 2B response to the TT (>3-s pause regardless of blood pressure drop). The primary and secondary endpoints are time to first post-implantation recurrence of syncope or the combination of pre-syncope or syncope, respectively. One hundred and twenty-eight consenting patients will be 1:1 randomized to dual-chamber cardiac pacing ‘on’ or ‘off’ after pacemaker implantation, and followed up until the first adjudicated primary endpoint event for a maximum of 2 years. The so-called Closed Loop Stimulation function on top of dual-chamber pacing is the pacing mode selected in the study active arm. Participating patients are asked to self-report syncopal symptoms at least every 3 months with self-administered questionnaires addressed to an independent Adjudication Committee. Patients and members of the Adjudicating Committee are blinded to randomization. The study is designed to detect a 40% relative reduction in the 2-year incidence of syncopal recurrences with 80% statistical power.

Discussion

The BIOSync study is designed to definitively assess the benefit of pacing against placebo in reflex syncope patients with a cardio-inhibitory response to the TT. The study will also provide important information on the efficiency of the TT in appropriately selecting reflex syncope patients for cardiac pacing.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02324920 (27 October 2016, date last accessed).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1941-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pacing as a treatment for reflex-mediated (vasovagal, situational, or carotid sinus hypersensitivity) syncope: A systematic review for the 2017 ACC/AHA/HRS guideline for the evaluation and management of patients with syncope: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

OBJECTIVES

To determine, using systematic review of the biomedical literature, whether pacing reduces risk of recurrent syncope and relevant clinical outcomes among adult patients with reflex-mediated syncope.

METHODS

MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through October 7, 2015) were searched for randomized trials and observational studies examining pacing and syncope, and the bibliographies of known systematic reviews were also examined. Studies were rejected for poor-quality study methods and for the lack of the population, intervention, comparator, or outcome(s) of interest.

RESULTS

Of 3,188 citations reviewed, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review, including a total of 676 patients. These included 9 randomized trials and 1 observational study. Of the 10 studies, 4 addressed patients with carotid sinus hypersensitivity, and the remaining 6 addressed vasovagal syncope. Among the 6 open-label (unblinded) studies, we found that pacing was associated with a 70% reduction in recurrent syncope (relative risk [RR]: 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.60). When the 2 analyzable studies with double-blinded methodology were considered separately, there was no clear benefit (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.25-2.1), but confidence intervals were wide. The strongest evidence was from the randomized, double-blinded ISSUE-3 (Third International Study on Syncope of Uncertain Etiology) trial, which demonstrated a benefit of pacing among patients with recurrent syncope and asystole documented by implantable loop recorder.

CONCLUSIONS

There are limited data with substantive evidence of outcome ascertainment bias, and only 2 studies with a double-blinded study design have been conducted. The evidence does not support the use of pacing for reflex-mediated syncope beyond patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope and asystole documented by implantable loop recorder.

Pacing as a Treatment for Reflex-Mediated (Vasovagal, Situational, or Carotid Sinus Hypersensitivity) Syncope: A Systematic Review for the 2017 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Syncope: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

OBJECTIVES

To determine, using systematic review of the biomedical literature, whether pacing reduces risk of recurrent syncope and relevant clinical outcomes among adult patients with reflex-mediated syncope.

METHODS

MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through October 7, 2015) were searched for randomized trials and observational studies examining pacing and syncope, and the bibliographies of known systematic reviews were also examined. Studies were rejected for poor-quality study methods and for the lack of the population, intervention, comparator, or outcome(s) of interest.

RESULTS

Of 3188 citations reviewed, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review, including a total of 676 patients. These included 9 randomized trials and 1 observational study. Of the 10 studies, 4 addressed patients with carotid sinus hypersensitivity, and the remaining 6 addressed vasovagal syncope. Among the 6 open-label (unblinded) studies, we found that pacing was associated with a 70% reduction in recurrent syncope (relative risk [RR]: 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.60). When the 2 analyzable studies with double-blinded methodology were considered separately, there was no clear benefit (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.25-2.1), but confidence intervals were wide. The strongest evidence was from the randomized, double-blinded ISSUE-3 (Third International Study on Syncope of Uncertain Etiology) trial, which demonstrated a benefit of pacing among patients with recurrent syncope and asystole documented by implantable loop recorder.

CONCLUSIONS

There are limited data with substantive evidence of outcome ascertainment bias, and only 2 studies with a double-blinded study design have been conducted. The evidence does not support the use of pacing for reflex-mediated syncope beyond patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope and asystole documented by implantable loop recorder.

Pacing as a Treatment for Reflex-Mediated (Vasovagal, Situational, or Carotid Sinus Hypersensitivity) Syncope: A Systematic Review for the 2017 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Syncope: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

OBJECTIVES

To determine, using systematic review of the biomedical literature, whether pacing reduces risk of recurrent syncope and relevant clinical outcomes among adult patients with reflex-mediated syncope.

METHODS

MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through October 7, 2015) were searched for randomized trials and observational studies examining pacing and syncope, and the bibliographies of known systematic reviews were also examined. Studies were rejected for poor-quality study methods and for the lack of the population, intervention, comparator, or outcome(s) of interest.

RESULTS

Of 3,188 citations reviewed, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review, including a total of 676 patients. These included 9 randomized trials and 1 observational study. Of the 10 studies, 4 addressed patients with carotid sinus hypersensitivity, and the remaining 6 addressed vasovagal syncope. Among the 6 open-label (unblinded) studies, we found that pacing was associated with a 70% reduction in recurrent syncope (relative risk [RR]: 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.60). When the 2 analyzable studies with double-blinded methodology were considered separately, there was no clear benefit (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.25-2.1), but confidence intervals were wide. The strongest evidence was from the randomized, double-blinded ISSUE-3 (Third International Study on Syncope of Uncertain Etiology) trial, which demonstrated a benefit of pacing among patients with recurrent syncope and asystole documented by implantable loop recorder.

CONCLUSIONS

There are limited data with substantive evidence of outcome ascertainment bias, and only 2 studies with a double-blinded study design have been conducted. The evidence does not support the use of pacing for reflex-mediated syncope beyond patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope and asystole documented by implantable loop recorder.

The Current Indication for Pacemaker in Patients with Cardioinhibitory Vasovagal Syncope

The most frequent cause of syncope is vasovagal reflex. It is associated with worse quality of life, depression, fatigue and physical injury. Recurrence of vasovagal syncope is an aggravating, reaching the rate of 69%. Initial step and pharmacological treatment may not work, especially in patients with recurrent syncope without prodrome. These patients can present cardioinhibitory response with asystole. Studies were designed to analyses the effectiveness of pacemaker for prevention of syncope. In this review, nonrandomized clinical trials, open-label randomized, double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled, and studies based on tilt test or Implantable Loop Recorder findings will be discussed.