Permanent pacemaker implantation in unexplained syncope patients with borderline sinus bradycardia and electrophysiology study-proven sinus node disease

An Investigation of Metabolic Risk Factors and Gut Microbiota in Unexplained Syncope

BACKGROUND

The pathogenesis of many syncopal episodes remains unexplained. Intestinal dysbiosis could be involved in the pathophysiological mechanisms of syncope due to its connection with the central nervous system via the microbiota-gut-brain axis. This pilot study aimed to explore the specific cardiometabolic risk factors and gut microbiota in unexplained syncope (US), compared to other types of syncope, to assess their similarity or verify their different origins.

METHODS

We studied 86 participants with syncope, who were divided into four groups: an orthostatic syncope group (OH, n = 24), a neuromediated syncope group (NMS, n = 26), a cardiological syncope group (CS, n = 9), and an unexplained syncope group (US, n = 27). We evaluated the anthropometric, clinical, and metabolic characteristics of the four groups; the α- and β-diversity; and the differences in the abundance of the microbial taxa.

RESULTS

The US group had a lower incidence of systolic hypertension at the first visit and a lower frequency of patients with nocturnal hypertension than the CS group. Compared to the OH and NMS groups, the US group had a higher incidence of carotid plaques and greater carotid intima-media thickness, respectively. The microbiota differed significantly between the US and CS groups, but not between the US group and the OH or NMS group.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed significant differences in the gut microbiota between CS and US. Future studies are necessary to evaluate the involvement of the gut microbiota in the complex pathogenesis of syncope and whether its analysis could support the interpretation of the pathophysiological mechasnisms underlying some episodes classifiable as US.

Management of Patients With Unexplained Syncope: Derivation and Validation of a Simplified 2-Step Diagnostic Approach

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to develop a structured 2-step approach, based on noninvasive diagnostic criteria, that led to an electrophysiology study in patients with unexplained syncope.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two independent cohorts were used: the derivation cohort with 665 patients based on electronic health record data to develop our 2-step diagnostic approach, and the validation cohort based on 160 prospectively screened patients, presenting with unexplained syncope episodes. Noninvasive electrocardiographic and imaging markers and an electrophysiology study-based invasive assessment were combined. A positive diagnostic approach according to our study's prespecified criteria resulted in a decision to proceed with a permanent pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The primary end point was the time until the event of recurrent syncope (syncope-free survival). Number needed to treat was calculated for patients with a positive diagnostic approach. The number of patients with unexplained syncope and borderline sinus bradycardia needed to treat was 5, and the number of patients with unexplained syncope and bundle branch block needed to treat was 3 over a mean follow-up of ≈4 years. After the structured 2-step approach, the primary outcome occurred in 14 of 82 (17.1%) with a pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and 19 of 57 (33%) with a negative approach, with a mean follow-up of ≈2.5 years (29.29±12.58 months, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The low number needed to treat in the derivation cohort and the low percentage of syncope recurrence in the validation cohort supports the proposed 2-step electrophysiology-inclusive algorithm as a potentially low-cost, 1-day, structured tool for these patients.

Management of Patients With Unexplained Syncope and Bundle Branch Block: Predictive Factors of Recurrent Syncope

Syncope in patients with bundle branch block (BBB) is often due to advanced atrioventricular (AV) block. The objective of the present "real-world" study was to evaluate the optimal management in patients with unexplained syncope and BBB and to identify factors that predict the recurrence of syncope. This is a single-center observational prospective registry of 131 consecutive patients undergoing invasive electrophysiology study (EPS) for recurrent unexplained presyncope or syncope attacks and BBB. When the EPS-derived diagnosis was reached, a decision to proceed with a permanent pacemaker was offered to the patient. An implantable loop recorder was inserted in the rest of the population. A total of 131 consecutive patients with unexplained syncope and BBB (67.2% male; age 63.7 ± 16.5 years) underwent EPS during the study period. The distribution of conduction disturbance patterns was as follows: isolated left bundle branch block (LBBB): 23.7%; LBBB with first AV block: 8.4%; isolated right bundle branch block (RBBB): 10.7%; RBBB with first AV block: 8.4%; isolated left anterior/posterior fascicular block: 13%; left anterior/posterior fascicular block with first AV block: 5.3%; isolated bifascicular block: 16.8%; and bifascicular block with first AV block: 13.7%. In the multivariate analysis, the only predictors of recurrent syncope were bifascicular block (hazard ratio (HR): 4.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29, 13.41, P: 0.017) and HV interval ≥ 60 msec (HR: 3.58, 95% CI: 1.12, 11.46, P: 0.032). An EPS-based strategy identifies a subset of patients who will benefit from permanent pacing. HV interval ≥ 60 msec and the presence of a bifascicular block were strongly related to syncope recurrence.

How Should We Approach Syncope in the Emergency Department? Current Perspectives

Syncope is a clinical picture that can affect all age groups and has an important place in admissions to the emergency department. There is an important diagnostic challenge in cases where there are different clinical presentations and patients cannot express the situation clearly. Although the emergency department facilities for the diagnosis of syncope are limited, the diagnosis of many patients can be differentiated from life-threatening conditions with a detailed history and physical examination. High-risk patients should be identified and directed for definitive treatment by emergency medicine physicians. This review contains information about the management of the syncope patient in the emergency department.

Beta-Blocker-Related Atrioventricular Conduction Disorders—A Single Tertiary Referral Center Experience

Background and Objectives: Drug-related bradyarrhythmia is a well-documented major adverse event among beta-blocker users and a potential cause for hospitalization or additional interventions. Whether beta-blocker use is associated with specific bradyarrhythmia presentations, and how this relates to other predisposing factors, is not well known. We aim to evaluate the association between beta-blocker use and the type of atrioventricular (AV) conduction disorder in patients with symptomatic bradycardia. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on 596 patients with a primary diagnosis of symptomatic bradyarrhythmia admitted to a single tertiary referral center. Of the cases analyzed, 253 patients were on beta-blocker treatment at presentation and 343 had no bradycardic treatment. We analyzed demographics, clinical and paraclinical parameters in relation to the identified AV conduction disorder. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to explore factors associated with beta-blocker use. Results: Of the 596 patients (mean age 73.9 ± 8.8 years, 49.2% male), 261 (43.8%) had a third-degree AV block, 92 (15.4%) had a second-degree AV block, 128 (21.5%) had slow atrial fibrillation, 93 (15.6%) had sick sinus syndrome and 21 (3.5%) had sinus bradycardia/sinus pauses. Beta-blocker use was associated with the female gender (p < 0.001), emergency admission (p < 0.001), dilated cardiomyopathy (p = 0.003), the lower left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.02), mitral stenosis (p = 0.009), chronic kidney disease (p = 0.02), higher potassium levels (p = 0.04) and QRS duration > 120 ms (p = 0.02). Slow atrial fibrillation (OR = 4.2, p < 0.001), sick sinus syndrome (OR = 2.8, p = 0.001) and sinus bradycardia/pauses (OR = 32.9, p < 0.001) were more likely to be associated with beta-blocker use compared to the most common presentation (third-degree AV block), after adjusting for other patient characteristics. Conclusions: Beta-blocker use is more likely to be associated with slow atrial fibrillation, sick sinus syndrome and sinus bradycardia/pauses, compared to a second- or third-degree AV block, after adjusting for other patient factors such as gender, admission type, ECG, comorbidities, cardiac function and lab testing.

Permanent pacemaker implantation in unexplained syncope patients with electrophysiology study-proven atrioventricular node disease

BACKGROUND

Syncope, whose cause is unknown after an initial assessment, has an uncertain prognosis. It is critical to identify patients at highest risk who may require a pacemaker and to identify the cause of recurrent syncope to prescribe proper therapy. Aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of permanent pacing on the incidence of syncope in patients with unexplained syncope and electrophysiology study-proven atrioventricular node disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was an observational study based on a prospective registry of 236 consecutive patients (60.20 ± 18.66 years, 63.1% male, 60.04 ± 9.50 bpm) presenting with recurrent unexplained syncope attacks admitted to our hospital for invasive electrophysiology study (EPS). The decision to implant a permanent pacemaker was made in all cases by the attending physicians according to the results of the EPS. 135 patients received the antibradycardia pacemaker (ABP), while 101 declined.

RESULTS

The mean of reported syncope episodes was 1.97 ± 1.10 (or presyncope 2.17 ± 1.50) before they were referred for a combined EP guided diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Over a mean follow-up of approximately 4 years (49.19 ± 29.58 months), the primary outcome event (syncope) occurred in 31 of 236 patients (13.1%), 6 of 135 (4.4%) in the ABP group as compared to 25 of 101 (24.8%) in the no pacemaker group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with a history of unexplained syncope, a set of positivity criteria for the presence of EPS defined atrioventricular node disease, identifies a subset of patients who will benefit from permanent pacing.

Unexplained Syncope: The Importance of the Electrophysiology Study

Syncope of cardiac origin may be associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death if not treated in a timely and appropriate manner. The diagnostic approach of syncope imposes a significant economic burden on society. The investigation and elucidation of the pathogenetic mechanism of syncope are of great clinical importance, as both prognosis and appropriate therapeutic approaches depend on these factors. The responsible mechanism of presyncope or syncope can only be revealed through the patient history, baseline clinical examination and electrocardiogram. The percentage of patients who are diagnosed with these tests alone exceeds 50%. In patients with a history of organic or acquired heart disease or/and the presence of abnormal findings on the electrocardiogram, a further diagnostic electrophysiology inclusive approach should be followed to exclude life threatening arrhythmiological mechanism. However, if the patient does not suffer from underlying heart disease and does not show abnormal electrocardiographic findings in the electrocardiogram, then the probability in the electrophysiology study to find a responsible cause is small but not absent. The role of a two-step electrophysiology study inclusive risk stratification approach for the effective management of the former is thoroughly discussed in this review.