Beta-blockers in syncope: the jury is still out

Fluoxetine vs. propranolol in the treatment of vasovagal syncope: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study

AIMS

To compare the therapeutic efficacy of placebo, propranolol, and fluoxetine in patients with vasovagal syncope (VVS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Ninety-six consecutive patients with VVS were randomized to treatment with placebo, propranolol, or fluoxetine and followed-up for 6 months. Before and during treatment, they reported their syncopal and presyncopal episodes and graded their well-being, expressed as the general evaluation of life, general activities, and everyday activities (each scaled from 1 = very good to 5 = very bad). Two patients refused follow-up. Among the remaining 94, no difference between groups was observed regarding the distribution of time of vasovagal events (syncopes or presyncopes) during follow-up (log-rank test). No difference was also observed when syncopes and presyncopes were assessed separately. Eighteen patients discontinued therapy. Among the remaining 76 ('on-treatment' analysis), the mean time to a vasovagal episode (syncope or presyncope) was significantly longer in the fluoxetine group when compared with the two other groups (log-rank test, P < 0.05). A significant difference in favour of fluoxetine was also observed regarding presyncopes. The difference between groups regarding the syncope-free period was not significant. During therapy, patients' well-being was improved (decreased) only in the fluoxetine-group (13.4 +/- 0.7 vs. 15.4 +/- 0.9 before treatment, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Fluoxetine seems to be equivalent to propranolol and placebo in the treatment of VVS. However, it improves patients' well-being and might be more effective in reducing presyncopes and total vasovagal events in some patients with recurrent VVS.

A randomised prospective comparison of three protocols for head-up tilt testing and carotid sinus massage

INTRODUCTION

Head-up tilt testing is an important tool in the diagnosis of syncope. Several different protocols are in use. This study aimed to compare three different protocols in an unselected population of patients with recurrent unexplained syncope and to assess long-term outcome using conventional tilt-directed management or implantable loop recorder (Reveal Plus)-directed management, allowing evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of the technique.

METHODS

Patients with recurrent unexplained syncope were randomized to one of three tilt protocols: Drug-free--70 degree tilt, 45 min, CSM at 5 and 45 min. GTN--70 degree tilt, 35 min, CSM at 5 min, 400 microg of glyceryl trinitrate spray administered sublingually at 20 min. Adenosine--70 degree tilt, 5 min, CSM when blood pressure is stable in upright position, adenosine bonus at 150 microg/kg after CSM. Tilts were terminated at the onset of syncope, when systolic BP reached 60 mm Hg, or in the presence of prolonged hypotension (> 3 min systolic BP < 80 mm Hg). Appropriate therapies were commenced according to the result of the tilt test. All patients without a definite indication for immediate cardiac pacing (asystolic tilt) were randomized to conventional management or ILR implantation. Recurrent syncopal events were compared to tilt outcome, allowing estimation of sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

Of 214 patients, aged 68+/-18 years, 55% were female, with a median of three previous syncopes. 13 patients received pacemakers due to asystolic syncope during tilt testing. The proportion of VASIS classification diagnoses was similar with each protocol; however more positive diagnoses resulted from the GTN protocol (p=0.0013). 47% of patients achieved a diagnosis with tilt testing. We were able to correlate a subsequent spontaneous syncope to tilt result in 36 patients (18%). Heart rate during a spontaneous event was similar to that obtained during tilt testing (+/- 10%) in 55% of cases. Sensitivities for combined protocols, adenosine, GTN, and drug-free protocols were 50%, 50%, 100%, and 21%, respectively. Specificities were 85%, 100%, 75%, and 71%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A high diagnosis rate for unexplained syncope can be achieved with tilt testing. The GTN protocol resulted in significantly more diagnoses than the other compared protocols with good sensitivity and adequate specificity. Sensitivity of the drug-free tilt test was lower than drug-augmented tilt testing.

Prognostic value of head-up tilt test with intravenous beta-blocker administration in assessing the efficacy of therapy in patients with vasovagal syncope

BACKGROUND

Although beta-blockers are frequently used in order to prevent the recurrence of vasovagal syncope, the efficacy of this treatment is difficult to determine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if the result of a tilt test with an intravenously administered beta-blocker can predict the long-term efficacy of beta-blockade.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 62 patients (29 females, mean age 32.8 +/- 12.3 years and 33 males, mean age 35.9 +/- 18.2 years) with at least two syncopal episodes during 6 months preceding the positive tilt test. After the baseline tilt test, propranolol (0.1 mg/kg BW) was administered intravenously and the tilt test was repeated. Beta-blockade was considered effective if the subsequent tilt test proved negative (complete efficacy) or if the time until the occurrence of syncope at the subsequent tilt test was longer compared to the baseline test (partial efficacy). All the patients were put on continuous propranolol treatment and were followed up for a period of 1 year or until the time when syncope recurred.

RESULTS

Intravenously administered propranolol prevented (n = 33) or delayed (n = 18) the occurrence of syncope at the tilt test in 51 patients (82%), while it was found ineffective in the remaining 11 patients (18%). During the 8.6 +/- 6.7 months (range 1-14) of the follow-up period, the syncope recurred in 20 patients (32%), with 13 patients (25%) in the group where intravenously administered propranolol proved effective versus 7 patients (64%) for whom intravenously administered propranolol did not prevent syncope during the tilt test (P < 0.015). The survival analysis with respect to the recurrence of syncope revealed a significant correlation between the results of the tilt test with intravenously administered propranolol and the efficacy of the long-term beta-blocker therapy (P < 0.003). There were no significant differences with respect to the predictive value of the tilt test with propranolol between the patients showing complete and partial propranolol efficacy (ns), while significant differences were observed between these two groups on one hand and the patients in whom intravenously administered propranolol was found ineffective on the other (P < 0.04 and P < 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous propranolol prevents tilt-induced syncope in a significant percentage of patients. The results of the tilt tests combined with the administration of propranolol predict the efficacy of a continuous propranolol treatment. Both complete and partial propranolol efficacy at tilt test can successfully identify those patients who will benefit from continuous beta blockade.

Syncope: investigation and treatment

Syncope is a common condition that can be both disabling and expensive to treat. Although investigative modalities are sometimes required, a diagnosis can often be made with a good history and physical exam. Recent reports have identified specific historic features that are more suggestive of cardiac syncope as compared with vasovagal syncope and seizures. Advances in ambulatory electrocardiography (in particular the implantable loop recorder) have proven invaluable in both difficult-to-diagnose syncope, and in advancing our knowledge of its mechanisms. When clear dysrhythmias are manifest, appropriate therapies are self-evident. However, recurrent vasovagal syncope continues to be a condition that can be difficult to treat. Fortunately, there are well-conducted trials of both pharmacologic therapies (b-blockers, alpha agonists, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and nonpharmacologic treatments (orthostatic physical training and dual-chamber pacemakers) that should provide more guidance in the near future.