Mohammed Ruzieh1, Mehrdad Ghahramani2, Matthew Nudy3, Gerald V Naccarelli2, John Mandrola4, Blair P Grubb5, Andrew J Foy2. 1. Penn State Heart and Vascular Institute, 500 University Drive, PO Box 850, MC H047, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA. moh.ruzieh@gmail.com. 2. Penn State Heart and Vascular Institute, 500 University Drive, PO Box 850, MC H047, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA. 3. Penn State Department of Internal Medicine, Hershey, USA. 4. Baptist Health Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA. 5. The University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A proportion of patients with vasovagal syncope (VVS) experience recurrence despite appropriate management. Closed loop stimulation (CLS) pacing is a promising treatment for a subgroup of patients with cardioinhibitory response on head-up tilt table test (HUTT). Nonetheless, its efficacy remains uncertain. We sought to assess the efficacy of CLS pacing in patients with cardioinhibitory VVS. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials for relevant studies (last search date April 23, 2018). Data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model. For cohort studies, we used a Freeman-Tukey transformation to calculate the weighted summary proportion. Primary outcomes are syncope and presyncope. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the final analyses (two single-blinded and one double-blinded RCT, two prospective observational studies, and three retrospective observational studies). Two hundred ninety-one patients included, with an average age of 57 years. Quality of evidence is moderate. Use of CLS pacing was associated with reduced risk of syncope (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.03-0.18; I2 32%) and presyncope (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.18-0.63; I2 0.00%). Using proportion meta-analysis, the summary estimate of the proportion of cases that developed syncope during CLS pacing was similar between RCTs and prospective studies (3.2% and 3.1%), respectively. This is much lower than the rate of recurrence in the control arm of RCTs at 33.7%. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: CLS pacing is beneficial for patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope who demonstrate a cardioinhibitory response on HUTT.
PURPOSE: A proportion of patients with vasovagal syncope (VVS) experience recurrence despite appropriate management. Closed loop stimulation (CLS) pacing is a promising treatment for a subgroup of patients with cardioinhibitory response on head-up tilt table test (HUTT). Nonetheless, its efficacy remains uncertain. We sought to assess the efficacy of CLS pacing in patients with cardioinhibitory VVS. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials for relevant studies (last search date April 23, 2018). Data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model. For cohort studies, we used a Freeman-Tukey transformation to calculate the weighted summary proportion. Primary outcomes are syncope and presyncope. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the final analyses (two single-blinded and one double-blinded RCT, two prospective observational studies, and three retrospective observational studies). Two hundred ninety-one patients included, with an average age of 57 years. Quality of evidence is moderate. Use of CLS pacing was associated with reduced risk of syncope (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.03-0.18; I2 32%) and presyncope (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.18-0.63; I2 0.00%). Using proportion meta-analysis, the summary estimate of the proportion of cases that developed syncope during CLS pacing was similar between RCTs and prospective studies (3.2% and 3.1%), respectively. This is much lower than the rate of recurrence in the control arm of RCTs at 33.7%. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. CONCLUSION:CLS pacing is beneficial for patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope who demonstrate a cardioinhibitory response on HUTT.
Authors: Sachin Sud; David Massel; George J Klein; Peter Leong-Sit; Raymond Yee; Allan C Skanes; Lorne J Gula; Andrew D Krahn Journal: Am J Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Elpidoforos S Soteriades; Jane C Evans; Martin G Larson; Ming Hui Chen; Leway Chen; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel Levy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-09-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stuart J Connolly; Robert Sheldon; Kevin E Thorpe; Robin S Roberts; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Bruce L Wilkoff; Carlos Morillo; Michael Gent Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michele Brignole; Carlo Menozzi; Angel Moya; Dietrich Andresen; Jean Jacques Blanc; Andrew D Krahn; Wouter Wieling; Xulio Beiras; Jean Claude Deharo; Vitantonio Russo; Marco Tomaino; Richard Sutton Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-05-07 Impact factor: 29.690