Selection of the Best of 2017 on the Usefulness of Cardiac Stimulation in the Treatment of Vasovagal Syncope

doi:10.1016/j.rec.2017.10.053

Ampliar

Pages 228-229 (March 2018)

Scientific letter
Selection of the Best of 2017 on the Usefulness of Cardiac Stimulation in the Treatment of Vasovagal Syncope

Selección de lo mejor del año 2017 sobre la utilidad de la estimulación cardiaca en el tratamiento del síncope vasovagal

Gonzalo Barón-Esquiviasa Carlos A. MorillobAngel Moya-MitjanscJesús Martínez-Aldayd eRicardo Ruiz-GranellfJavier Lacunza-Ruizg

a Servicio de Cardiología y Cirugía Cardíaca, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain

b Department of Cardiac Sciences, Libin Cardiovacular Institute of Alberta, University of Calgary and Population Health Research Institute-McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

c Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain

d Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario Basurto, Bilbao, Spain

e Servicio de Cardiología, Clínica IMQ Zorrotzaurre, Bilbao, Spain

f Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario Clínico de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

g Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, El Palmar, Murcia, Spain

Selection of the Best of 2017 on Cardiac Pacing: Magnetic Resonance in Patients With Pacemaker and Implantable Defibrillator

Rev Esp Cardiol. 2018;71:229-3110.1016/j.rec.2017.10.051

María José Sancho-Tello de Carranza, Óscar Cano Pérez, Joaquín Osca Asensi, Diego Lorente Carreño, Marta Pombo Jiménez, María Luisa Fidalgo Andrés

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2017.10.053

View PDF

Lea este artículo en español

Options

Other articles of interest

Statistics

1836 Total PDF

4060 Total HTML

Year/month	Html	Pdf	Total
2024 October	20	14	34
2024 September	86	23	109
2024 August	71	38	109
2024 July	36	11	47
2024 June	37	17	54
2024 May	39	19	58
2024 April	40	36	76
2024 March	35	18	53
2024 February	42	25	67
2024 January	23	21	44
2023 December	33	24	57
2023 November	48	30	78
2023 October	44	51	95
2023 September	36	9	45
2023 August	37	12	49
2023 July	33	12	45
2023 June	54	17	71
2023 May	25	21	46
2023 April	22	16	38
2023 March	34	13	47
2023 February	44	13	57
2023 January	35	21	56
2022 December	55	22	77
2022 November	49	24	73
2022 October	58	36	94
2022 September	34	19	53
2022 August	71	22	93
2022 July	34	22	56
2022 June	55	23	78
2022 May	33	21	54
2022 April	43	30	73
2022 March	50	33	83
2022 February	52	34	86
2022 January	34	31	65
2021 December	33	32	65
2021 November	40	32	72
2021 October	50	34	84
2021 September	35	24	59
2021 August	70	22	92
2021 July	24	14	38
2021 June	33	12	45
2021 May	50	16	66
2021 April	101	58	159
2021 March	55	20	75
2021 February	53	18	71
2021 January	47	14	61
2020 December	69	26	95
2020 November	31	20	51
2020 October	35	15	50
2020 September	36	17	53
2020 August	33	6	39
2020 July	52	16	68
2020 June	23	7	30
2020 May	28	15	43
2020 April	39	19	58
2020 March	28	15	43
2020 February	26	9	35
2020 January	35	18	53
2019 December	30	11	41
2019 November	24	6	30
2019 October	27	8	35
2019 September	50	19	69
2019 August	69	27	96
2019 July	105	89	194
2019 June	102	71	173
2019 May	73	47	120
2019 April	49	17	66
2019 March	66	18	84
2019 February	90	22	112
2019 January	106	11	117
2018 December	115	21	136
2018 November	86	6	92
2018 October	73	19	92
2018 September	51	15	66
2018 August	38	18	56
2018 July	71	12	83
2018 June	64	16	80
2018 May	59	25	84
2018 April	63	26	89
2018 March	177	75	252
2018 February	4	0	4

To the Editor,

During 2016 and 2017, 5 papers have been published on recurrent vasovagal syncope with cardioinhibitory response to the tilt table test (TTT) and treatment with pacemaker implantation.

The first paper reported on a single center, retrospective, observational study of 24 patients with recurrent syncope. An in-depth diagnostic protocol was applied, including a TTT and exclusion of any other cause for syncope, followed by insertion of an implantable loop recorder (ILR). When patients then had a first syncope recurrence accompanied by asystole longer than 3 seconds or asystole longer than 6 seconds irrespective of syncope recurrence, they received a dual-chamber pacemaker with rate drop response (RDR). In the 35-month follow-up, syncope recurred in 7 patients, 4 of whom were TTT-positive. However, of the 17 patients without syncope recurrence, the TTT was positive in only 2.1

The second paper described a prospective, multicenter study with 281 patients older than 40 years who underwent a diagnostic study starting with carotid sinus massage (CSM). Of these patients, 78 had asystole and were given an implantable PM. The remaining 203 patients underwent a TTT. A VASIS type 2B response with asystole was induced in 38 patients, who were then given an implantable PM. The remaining 165 patients received an ILR. Asystole was recorded in 21 of these patients, who were then given an implantable PM. All 137 patients treated with a PM received a dual-chamber device with rate drop sensing to allow minimal ventricular pacing time. Syncope recurred in 25 of the 281 patients (18%), and there were no differences according to the test (CSM, TTB or ILR) that indicated PM requirement. At 3 years of follow-up, 20% of the 137 patients with a PM had had syncope recurrence, which was significantly lower than the 43% in the 142 patients who received no PM (P=.01). Among the patients who had asystole during the TTT, syncope recurrence was 3% at 12 months and 17% at 21 months. Among the patients with a negative TTT, syncope recurrence was only 5% at 3 years.2

The third paper reported on a multicenter, prospective, single-blind, randomized study that enrolled 30 patients with a dual-chamber PM with closed-loop stimulation (CLS) implanted at least 6 months prior to enrolment, with a history of recurrent syncopes and cardioinhibitory response to the TTT. At the initial visit, patients were randomized 1:1 by a central system into 1 of 2 pacing groups, DDD-CLS first or DDD first (at a fixed rate of 60 bpm), and they underwent a first TTT with the PM activated. At the end of the test, the PM was reprogrammed and 1 week later, the test was repeated with the other pacing mode, i.e., with crossover from DDD-CLS to DDD and from DDD to DDD-CLS. Compared with DDD, the DDD-CLS mode significantly reduced the occurrence of syncope in the TTT (30.0% vs 76.7%; P <.001). Among the patients who had a syncope in both TTTs and with both pacing modes, DDD-CLS significantly delayed the onset of syncope during TTT. The maximum fall in blood pressure recorded during the TTT was significantly lower in DDD-CLS than in DDD.3

The fourth paper described the SPAIN study, with a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind design, that enrolled 54 patients with recurrent syncope and TTT cardioinhibitory response. A total of 46 patients completed the protocol. All patients received a DDD-CLS PM and were randomized 1:1 to 2 groups: group A first received DDD-CLS for 12 months and then DDI for 12 months; group B first received DDI and then DDD-CLS for the same periods of time as group A. During 22 months of follow-up, in group A, 72% of patients receiving DDD-CLS therapy had ≥ 50% reduction in syncopes versus 28% of patients receiving DDI; and in group B, all patients had ≥ 50% reduction in syncopes after switching from DDI mode to DDD-CLS in the second year (P=.0003). Just 4 patients (8.7%) had a syncope when in DDD-CLS mode, versus 21 (45.65%) who had one when in DDI mode (hazard ratio=6.72; odds ratio=0.11; P <.0001). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly longer time to first syncope in group A versus group B and the same finding was also observed in the 46 patients in DDD-CLS mode versus DDI mode (P <.0001). Therefore, DDD-CLS pacing significantly reduces syncope burden, lowers syncope recurrence 7-fold, and significantly prolongs time to first recurrence.4,5 The BIOSync study, 6the fifth paper referred to here, aims to confirm our results.

References

[1]

M. Tomaino, M. Unterhuber, P. Sgobino, F. Pescoller, M. Manfrin, W. Rauhe.

Combined diagnostic yield of tilt table test and implantable loop recorder to identify patients affected by severe clinical presentation of neurally-mediated reflex syncope who could respond to cardiac pacing.

J Atr Fibrillation., (2016), 8 pp. 1397

http://dx.doi.org/10.4022/jafib.1397 | Medline

[2]

M. Brignole, F. Arabia, F. Ammirati, on behalf of the Syncope Unit Project 2 (SUP 2) investigators, et al.

Standardized algorithm for cardiac pacing in older patients affected by severe unpredictable réflex syncope: 3-year insights from the Syncope Unit, Project 2 (SUP 2) study.

Europace., (2016), 18 pp. 1427-1433

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv343 | Medline

[3]

P. Palmisano, G. Dell’Era, V. Russo, et al.

Effects of closed-loop stimulation vs, DDD pacing on haemodynamic variations and occurrence of syncope induced by head-up tilt test in older patients with refractory cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope: the Tilt test-Induced REsponse in Closed-loop Stimulation multicentre, prospective, single blind, randomized study.

Europace., (2017),

Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eux015 Accessed 26 Oct 2017.

[4]

G. Baron-Esquivias, C.A. Morillo, A. Moya-Mitjans, et al.

Dual-chamber pacing with closed loop stimulation in recurrent reflex vasovagal syncope, The SPAIN Study.

J Am Coll Cardiol., (2017), 70 pp. 1720-1728

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.026 | Medline

[5]

G. Barón-Esquivias, C.A. Morillo.

La estimulación definitiva en el paciente con síncope Neuromediado, Lecciones del estudio SPAIN.

Rev Esp Cardiol., (2017),

[en prensa]

[6]

M. Brignole, M. Tomaino, A. Aerts, et al.

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.

Trials, (2017), 18 pp. 208

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1941-4 | Medline

Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1941-4. Accessed 26 Oct 2017