Literature DB >> 10899092

Dual-chamber pacing in the treatment of neurally mediated tilt-positive cardioinhibitory syncope : pacemaker versus no therapy: a multicenter randomized study. The Vasovagal Syncope International Study (VASIS) Investigators.

R Sutton1, M Brignole, C Menozzi, A Raviele, P Alboni, P Giani, A Moya.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND-This study was performed to compare implantation of a DDI pacemaker with rate hysteresis with no implant in respect to syncopal recurrences in patients with severe cardioinhibitory tilt-positive neurally mediated syncope. METHODS AND RESULTS-Forty-two patients from 18 European centers were randomized to receive a DDI pacemaker programmed to 80 bpm with hysteresis of 45 bpm (19 patients) or no pacemaker (23 patients). Inclusion criteria were >/=3 syncopes over the last 2 years and a positive cardioinhibitory (Vasovagal Syncope International Study types 2A and 2B) response to tilt testing. The median number of previous syncopal episodes was 6; asystolic response to tilt testing was present in 36 patients (86%) (mean asystole, 13.9+/-10.2 seconds). All patients were followed up for a minimum of 1.0 years and a maximum of 6.7 years (mean, 3.7+/-2.2). One patient (5%) in the pacemaker arm experienced recurrence of syncope compared with 14 patients (61%) in the no-pacemaker arm (P=0.0006). In the no-pacemaker arm, the median time to first syncopal recurrence was 5 months, with a rate of 0.44 per year. On repeated tilt testing performed within 15 days after enrollment, positive responses were observed in 59% of patients with pacemakers and in 61% of patients without pacemakers (P=NS). CONCLUSIONS-In a limited, select group of patients with tilt-positive cardioinhibitory syncope, DDI pacing with hysteresis reduced the likelihood of syncope. The benefit of the therapy was maintained over the long term. Even in untreated patients, the syncopal recurrence burden was low. A negative result of tilt testing was not a useful means to evaluate therapy efficacy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10899092     DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.102.3.294

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  49 in total

1.  Determining the optimal pacing intervention rate for vasovagal syncope.

Authors:  A S Kurbaan; A C Franzén; Z Stack; D Heaven; G Mathur; R Sutton
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 2.  Can cardiac pacing prevent neurocardiogenic syncope?

Authors:  A K Gupta; A Maheshwari; R K Thakur; C P Shah; Y Y Lokhandwala
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 3.  Permanent pacing: new indications.

Authors:  M R Gold
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 4.  Has cardiac pacing a role in vasovagal syncope?

Authors:  Richard Sutton
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.900

5.  Sleep syncope: treatment with a permanent pacemaker.

Authors:  Jason A Rytlewski; John T Lee; Satish R Raj
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 1.976

6.  Bradyarrhythmias.

Authors:  Thomas J. Dresing; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2001-08

Review 7.  Permanent cardiac pacing as primary therapy for neurocardiogenic (reflex) syncope.

Authors:  Daniel J Kosinski; Blair P Grubb; Douglas A Wolfe
Journal:  Clin Auton Res       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.435

Review 8.  Diagnosis and treatment of syncope.

Authors:  Michele Brignole
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 9.  Basics of cardiac pacing: selection and mode choice.

Authors:  John M Morgan
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 10.  Syncope: investigation and treatment.

Authors:  Satish R Raj; Robert S Sheldon
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.931

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.