Usefulness of last generation insertable cardiac monitors in the diagnosis of unexplained syncope

AIMS

Guidelines recommend insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) in the early phases of the evaluation of unexplained syncope (US) syncope, when an arrhythmic etiology is suspected. We examined the diagnostic yield of the last generation ICM (LG-ICM) to establish the causes of US, by assessing in the clinical practice the incidence of: relevant arrhythmia diagnosis, syncope recurrences and CM-guided cardiac electronic device (CIED) implantation. We investigated also baseline patient characteristics associated to an increased risk of relevant arrhythmias and of syncope recurrence.

METHODS

Data prospectively collected from consecutive patients receiving LG-ICM for investigation of US or presyncope in our institution between November 2020 and January 2023 were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients (mean age 64.4 ± 16.1 years, 40.4% women) with US or pre-syncope episodes underwent implantation of the LG-ICM. During a mean follow-up of 11.7 ± 8.1 months, LG-ICM diagnostic yield was 42%. In particular, LG-ICM detected cardiac arrhythmias in 29 (27%) patients (in 6 out of them during a syncope recurrence) and to exclude the arrhythmic origin of the syncope in additional 19 (17%) patients. LG-ICM guided the implantation of a CIED in 16 (15%) US patients, due to the diagnosis of asystole or severe bradycardia. Age ≥ 65 years (p = 0.012) and atrial arrhythmia history (p = 0.004) are significant independent predictors of arrhythmic diagnoses performed by LG-ICM, while CAD is predictor of syncope recurrence (bordering on statistical significance, p = 0.056).

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield of LG-ICM in US syncope is comparable to those of ILR and previous generation ICM. The advantages of LG-ICM should be sought in lower hospital workload necessary to manage ICM data. Age ≥ 65 years and atrial arrhythmia history are independent predictors of significant ICM-detected arrhythmias.

Cardioneuroablation for vasovagal syncope: insights on patients' selection, centre settings, procedural workflow and endpoints-results from an European Heart Rhythm Association survey

AIMS

Cardioneuroablation (CNA) is a catheter-based intervention for recurrent vasovagal syncope (VVS) that consists in the modulation of the parasympathetic cardiac autonomic nervous system. This survey aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current CNA utilization in Europe.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 202 participants from 40 different countries replied to the survey. Half of the respondents have performed a CNA during the last 12 months, reflecting that it is considered a treatment option of a subset of patients. Seventy-one per cent of respondents adopt an approach targeting ganglionated plexuses (GPs) systematically in both the right atrium (RA) and left atrium (LA). The second most common strategy (16%) involves LA GP ablation only after no response following RA ablation. The procedural endpoint is frequently an increase in heart rate. Ganglionated plexus localization predominantly relies on an anatomical approach (90%) and electrogram analysis (59%). Less utilized methods include pre-procedural imaging (20%), high-frequency stimulation (17%), and spectral analysis (10%). Post-CNA, anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy is prescribed, with only 11% of the respondents discharging patients without such medication. Cardioneuroablation is perceived as effective (80% of respondents) and safe (71% estimated <1% rate of procedure-related complications). Half view CNA emerging as a first-line therapy in the near future.

CONCLUSION

This survey offers a snapshot of the current implementation of CNA in Europe. The results show high expectations for the future of CNA, but important heterogeneity exists regarding indications, procedural workflow, and endpoints of CNA. Ongoing efforts are essential to standardize procedural protocols and peri-procedural patient management.

Complications related to pacemakers and other cardiac implantable electronic devices: essentials for internists and emergency physicians

With the aging population, improving technology, and expanding indications for diagnosing and treating arrhythmias and heart failure, many patients are receiving cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Consequently, patients with CIEDs are frequently encountered in the emergency department and in the wards. It is imperative that emergency physicians and internists have a strong foundation on CIEDs and their potential complications. This review aims to help physicians develop a framework in approaching CIEDs and to recognize and manage clinical scenarios that may arise from CIED complications.

Effectiveness and safety of implantable loop recorder and clinical utility of remote monitoring in patients with unexplained, recurrent, traumatic syncope

BACKGROUND

Implantable loop recorder (ILR) is still underutilized in clinical practice, especially in the setting of elderly patients with recurrent, traumatic, unexplained syncope. Data on the actual risk of traumatic syncopal recurrence during ILR monitoring in this specific patient setting are lacking.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Prospective, multicentre registry enrolling consecutive patients undergoing ILR insertion for unexplained, recurrent, traumatic syncope. In a proportion of enrolled patients, remote monitoring (RM) was used for device follow-up. The risk of traumatic and non-traumatic syncopal recurrences during ILR observation were prospectively assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 483 consecutive patients (68±14 years, 59% male) were enrolled. During a median follow-up of 18 months, a final diagnosis was reached in 270 patients (55.9%). The risk of syncopal and traumatic syncopal recurrence was of 26.5 and 9.3%, respectively. RM significantly reduced the time to diagnosis (19.7±10.3 vs. 22.1±10.8 months; p=0.015) and was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of syncope recurrence of 48% (p<0.001), and of traumatic syncope recurrence of 49% (p=0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

ILR monitoring is effective and safe in patients with unexplained, recurrent, traumatic syncope. RM reduces the time to diagnosis and significantly reduces the risk of traumatic and non-traumatic syncopal relapses.

Management of older patients with unexplained, recurrent, traumatic syncope and bifascicular block: Implantable loop recorder versus empiric pacemaker implantation-Results of a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with unexplained syncope and bifascicular block (BFB), syncope may be caused by intermittent atrioventricular (AV) block. When a correlation between syncope and bradyarrhythmia is not documented in these patients, 2 alternative management strategies can be adopted: (1) empiric pacemaker (PM) implantation or (2) long-term continuous electrocardiographic monitoring by implantable loop recorder (ILR).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the risk of syncope recurrence associated with empiric PM implantation or ILR monitoring.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled consecutive patients with unexplained, recurrent, traumatic syncope and BFB who underwent ILR monitoring or empiric PM implantation. The risk and causes of syncope recurrence were assessed and compared between the 2 groups. Individual 1:1 propensity matching of baseline characteristics was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 309 consecutive patients (age 77.2 ± 12.2 years; 60.8% male) were enrolled. Propensity matching yielded 89 matched pairs. After median follow-up of 33 months, empiric PM implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of syncope recurrence than ILR monitoring (19.1 vs 46.1%; P <.001). A total of 35 patients (39.3%) who underwent ILR monitoring developed bradyarrhythmias (68.6% paroxysmal AV block) requiring PM implantation during follow-up. Excluding bradyarrhythmic syncope, the most frequent causes of syncope recurrence in both study groups were reflex syncope and orthostatic hypotension.

CONCLUSION

In patients with unexplained, recurrent, traumatic syncope and BFB, empiric PM implantation significantly reduced the risk of syncope recurrence in comparison with ILR monitoring. A high rate of patients who underwent ILR monitoring developed bradyarrhythmias requiring PM implantation.

Outcomes of Primary vs. Delayed Strategy of Implanting a Cardiac Monitor for Unexplained Syncope

Objective: Implantable cardiac monitors (ILR) have an important role in diagnosing unexplained syncope. However, outcomes of primary vs. delayed ILR implantation after initial syncope evaluation have not been explored. Methods: A total of 1705 patients with unexplained syncope were prospectively enrolled in the SYSTEMA (Syncope Study of Unselected Population in Malmö) cohort. Patients who underwent cardiovascular autonomic testing (CAT) and ILR were grouped into those referred to CAT after ILR implantation (primary ILR) and those in whom ILR was indicated after CAT (post-CAT ILR). Results: One-hundred-and-fifteen patients (6.7%) received ILRs. ILR recipients were older (58 vs. 52 years; p = 0.002), had more syncope recurrences (6 vs. 4; p < 0.001), more traumatic falls (72% vs. 53%; p < 0.001), and less prodrome (40% vs. 55%; p = 0.005) than patients without ILRs. During follow-up ≥16 months after ILR, 67 (58%) had normal sinus rhythm, 10 (8.7%) had sinus arrest, 10 (8.7%) AV-block, 13 (11.3%) atrial fibrillation, 9 (7.8%) supraventricular tachycardia, 4 (3.5%) sinus tachycardia and 2 (1.7%) ventricular tachycardia with clinical symptom reproduction. There were 52 patients (45%) in the primary-ILR group and 63 (55%) in the post-CAT ILR group. Proportions of negative ILR monitoring (17/52 vs. 25/63; p = 0.56) and pacemaker implantations (7/52 vs. 15/63; p = 0.23) did not differ between groups. Baseline ECG conduction disorders predicted pacemaker implantation (n = 11/17; odds ratio:10.6; 95%CI: 3.15−35.3; p < 0.001). CAT was more often positive (73% vs. 40%; p < 0.001) in primary-ILR group. Conclusions: Primary ILR implantation was associated with more positive CAT compared with delayed ILR implantation, but negative monitoring and pacemaker implantations were not different between groups. ECG conduction disorders predicted subsequent pacemaker implantation.

Causes of syncopal recurrences in patients treated with permanent pacing for bradyarrhythmic syncope: Findings from the SYNCOPACED registry

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the causes of syncope/collapse recurrences in patients with a previously implanted pacemaker for bradyarrhythmic syncope.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the causes of syncope/collapse recurrences after pacemaker implantation for bradyarrhythmic syncope in a large patient population.

METHODS

The SYNCOpal recurrences in patients treated with permanent PACing for bradyarrhythmic syncope (SYNCOPACED) registry was a prospective multicenter observational registry enrolling 1364 consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation for bradyarrhythmic syncope. During follow-up, the time to the first syncope/collapse recurrence was recorded. Patients with syncope/collapse recurrences underwent a predefined diagnostic workup aimed at establishing the mechanism of syncope/collapse.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 50 months, 213 patients (15.6%) reported at least 1 syncope/collapse recurrence. The risk of syncope/collapse recurrence was highest in patients who underwent implantation for cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope (26.4%), followed by unexplained syncope and chronic bifascicular block (21.5%), cardioinhibitory carotid sinus syndrome (17.2%), atrial fibrillation needing pacing (15.5%), atrioventricular block (13.6%), and sinus node disease (12.5%) (P = .017). The most frequent cause of syncope/collapse recurrence was reflex syncope (27.7%), followed by orthostatic hypotension (26.3%), pacemaker or lead malfunction (5.6%), structural cardiac disease (5.2%), and atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias (4.7% and 3.8%, respectively). In 26.8% of cases, the mechanism of syncope/collapse remained unexplained.

CONCLUSION

In patients receiving a pacemaker for bradyarrhythmic syncope, reflex syncope and orthostatic hypotension are the most frequent mechanisms of syncope/collapse recurrence after implantation. Pacing system malfunction, structural cardiac diseases, and tachyarrhythmias are rare mechanisms. The mechanism remains unexplained in >25% of patients.