Determining the optimal pacing intervention rate for vasovagal syncope

Prospective randomized study comparing permanent pacing with rate drop response and closed loop stimulation in patients with vasovagal syncope where permanent pacing is indicated and selected as the appropriate treatment option

BACKGROUND

Pacing for vasovagal syncope is established. Two pacing algorithms are available. The rate-drop-response (RDR-Medtronic) is triggered by falling heart rate acting with modified rate-hysteresis. The closed loop stimulation or system (CLS-Biotronik) is triggered by impedance changes in the right ventricle reflecting falling volume and rising contractility. These are very different physiologically. Both algorithms carry favorable reports in clinical use.

METHODS

A randomized-controlled superiority trial is proposed to compare the two algorithms for the control of vasovagal syncope in patients for whom pacing is indicated by current guidelines in North America and Europe. Available recent evidence may be seen as supporting superiority of CLS. No comparison between the two algorithms has been made. In this trial, patients will be centrally randomized to one or other algorithm on a 1:1 basis. Two-hundred-seventy-six patients in each group will be recruited. Sample size is determined using a confidence interval of 95%, a power of 90%, and a drop-out rate of 10% to detect an 11% difference between CLS and RDR. Recurrent symptom comparison will be made by an independent committee. The Co-primary endpoints will be recurrent syncope burden compared with that in 24-months preimplant, and occurrence of syncope in 24-months follow-up. Each outcome will be compared between the two algorithms. Secondary endpoints will be program and drug therapy changes over 24-months follow-up and quality of life by questionnaire at baseline,1 and 2 years.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

These are anticipated to clarify the device algorithm choice and, therefore, to improve patient care.

Tilt testing remains a valuable asset

Head-up tilt test (TT) has been used for >50 years to study heart rate/blood pressure adaptation to positional changes, to model responses to haemorrhage, to assess orthostatic hypotension, and to evaluate haemodynamic and neuroendocrine responses in congestive heart failure, autonomic dysfunction, and hypertension. During these studies, some subjects experienced syncope due to vasovagal reflex. As a result, tilt testing was incorporated into clinical assessment of syncope when the origin was unknown. Subsequently, clinical experience supports the diagnostic value of TT. This is highlighted in evidence-based professional practice guidelines, which provide advice for TT methodology and interpretation, while concurrently identifying its limitations. Thus, TT remains a valuable clinical asset, one that has added importantly to the appreciation of pathophysiology of syncope/collapse and, thereby, has improved care of syncopal patients.

Pacing in vasovagal syncope: Physiology, pacemaker sensors, and recent clinical trials-Precise patient selection and measurable benefit

The role of pacing in vasovagal syncope (VVS) is considered from a physiological basis. Most VVS patients lose consciousness due to hypotension before severe bradycardia/asystole occurs. Patients who benefit from dual-chamber pacing typically are older with highly symptomatic, late-onset, frequent and severe syncope with short/no prodrome and documented severe cardioinhibition. Tilt testing is of value in patients with recurrent unexplained syncope to identify important hypotensive susceptibility stemming from reduced venous return and stroke volume (SV). A negative tilt test in vasovagal patients with spontaneous asystole documented by an implantable/insertable loop recorder is associated with lower syncope recurrence rates after pacemaker implantation. Pacing may be more effective if triggered by sensor detection of a parameter changing earlier in the reflex than bradycardia when SV may still be relatively preserved. In this regard, detection of right ventricular impedance offers promise. Conservatism is recommended, limiting pacing in VVS to a small subset of symptomatic older patients with clearly documented cardioinhibition and paying particular attention to the timing of loss of consciousness in relation to asystole/bradycardia. Understanding VVS physiology permits application of well-timed, appropriate pacing that yields benefit for highly symptomatic patients.

Drugs and pacemakers for vasovagal, carotid sinus and situational syncope

BACKGROUND

Neurally mediated reflex syncope is the most common cause of transient loss of consciousness. In patients not responding to non-pharmacological treatment, pharmacological or pacemaker treatment might be considered.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of pharmacological therapy and pacemaker implantation in patients with vasovagal syncope, carotid sinus syncope and situational syncope.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008), PubMed (1950 until February 2008), EMBASE on OVID (1980 until February 2008) and CINAHL on EBSCOhost (1937 until February 2008). No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomized controlled trials and randomized cross-over trials of pharmacological treatment (beta-blockers, fludrocortisone, alpha-adrenergic agonists, selective serotonine reuptake inhibitors, ACE inhibitors, disopyramide, anticholinergic agents or salt tablets) or dual chamber pacemaker treatment. Studies were included if pharmacological or pacemaker treatment was compared with any form of standardised control treatment (standard treatment), placebo treatment, or (other) pharmacological or pacemaker treatment. We did not include non-randomized studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias. Using a standardised data extraction form, they extracted characteristics and results of the various studies. In a consensus meeting they discussed any disagreements that had occurred during data extraction. If no agreement could be reached, a third reviewer was asked to make a decision. Summary estimates with 95% confidence intervals of treatment effect were calculated using relative risks, rate ratios or weighted means differences depending on the type of outcome reported.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 46 randomized studies, 40 on vasovagal syncope and six on carotid sinus syncope. No studies on situational syncope matched the criteria for inclusion in our review. Studies in general were small with a median sample size of 42. A wide range of control treatments were used with 22 studies using a placebo arm. Blinding of patients and treating physicians was applied in eight studies. Results varied considerably between studies and between types of outcomes.For vasovagal syncope, the occurrence of syncope upon provocational head-up tilt testing was lower upon treatment with beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors and anticholinergic agents compared to standard treatment. For carotid sinus syncope, the occurrence of syncope upon carotid sinus massage was lower on midodrine treatment compared to placebo treatment in one study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of any of the pharmacological or pacemaker treatments for vasovagal syncope and carotid sinus syncope. Larger studies using patient relevant outcomes are needed.