Randomized Pragmatic Trial of Pacemaker Versus Implantable Cardiac Monitor in Syncope and Bifascicular Block

Canadian Cardiovascular Society 2023 Guidelines on the Fitness to Drive

Cardiovascular conditions are among the most frequent causes of impairment to drive, because they might induce unpredictable mental state alterations via diverse mechanisms like myocardial ischemia, cardiac arrhythmias, and vascular dysfunction. Accordingly, health professionals are often asked to assess patients' fitness to drive (FTD). The Canadian Cardiovascular Society previously published FTD guidelines in 2003-2004; herein, we present updated FTD guidelines. Because there are no randomized trials on FTD, observational studies were used to estimate the risk of driving impairment in each situation, and recommendations made on the basis of Canadian Cardiovascular Society Risk of Harm formula. More restrictive recommendations were made for commercial drivers, who spend longer average times behind the wheel, use larger vehicles, and might transport a larger number of passengers. We provide guidance for individuals with: (1) active coronary artery disease; (2) various forms of valvular heart disease; (3) heart failure, heart transplant, and left ventricular assist device situations; (4) arrhythmia syndromes; (5) implantable devices; (6) syncope history; and (7) congenital heart disease. We suggest appropriate waiting times after cardiac interventions or acute illnesses before driving resumption. When short-term driving cessation is recommended, recommendations are on the basis of expert consensus rather than the Risk of Harm formula because risk elevation is expected to be transient. These recommendations, although not a substitute for clinical judgement or governmental regulations, provide specialists, primary care providers, and allied health professionals with a comprehensive list of a wide range of cardiac conditions, with guidance provided on the basis of the level of risk of impairment, along with recommendations about ability to drive and the suggested duration of restrictions.

Predictors of pacemaker requirement in patients receiving implantable loop recorders for unexplained syncope: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) are increasingly used to evaluate patients with unexplained syncope. Identification of all predictors of bradycardic syncope and consequent permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion is of substantial clinical interest as patients in the highest risk category may benefit from upfront pacemaker insertion.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify risk predictors for PPM insertion in ILR recipients with unexplained syncope.

METHODS

An electronic database search (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane) was performed in June 2023. Studies evaluating ILR recipients with unexplained syncope and recording risk factors for eventual PPM insertion were included. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for clinical and electrocardiographic characteristics with respect to future PPM requirement.

RESULTS

Eight studies evaluating 1007 ILR recipients were included; 268 patients (26.6%) underwent PPM insertion during study follow-up. PPM recipients were older (mean age, 70.2 ± 15.4 years vs 61.6 ± 19.7 years; P < .001). PR prolongation on baseline electrocardiography was a significant predictor of PPM requirement (pooled OR, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-5.20). The presence of distal conduction system disease, encompassing any bundle branch or fascicular block, yielded a pooled OR of 2.88 for PPM insertion (95% confidence interval, 1.53-5.41). Injurious syncope and lack of syncopal prodrome were not significant predictors of PPM insertion. Sinus node dysfunction accounted for 62% of PPM insertions, whereas atrioventricular block accounted for 26%.

CONCLUSION

Approximately one-quarter of ILR recipients for unexplained syncope require eventual PPM insertion. Advancing age, PR prolongation, and distal conduction disease are the strongest predictors for PPM requirement.

Predictors of pacemaker requirement in patients with implantable loop recorder and unexplained syncope: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Identifying the underlying cause of unexplained syncope is crucial for appropriate management of recurrent syncopal episodes. Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) have emerged as valuable diagnostic tools for monitoring patients with unexplained syncope. However, the predictors of pacemaker requirement in patients with ILR and unexplained syncope remain unclear. In this study, we shed light on these prognostic factors. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were systematically searched until May 04, 2023. Studies that evaluated the predictors of pacemaker requirement in patients with implantable loop recorder and unexplained syncope were included. The "Quality In Prognosis Studies" appraisal tool was used for quality assessment. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The publication bias was evaluated using Egger's and Begg's tests. Ten studies (n = 4200) were included. Right bundle branch block (OR: 3.264; 95% CI: 1.907-5.588, p < .0001) and bifascicular block (OR: 2.969; 95% CI: 1.859-4.742, p < .0001) were the strongest predictors for pacemaker implantation. Pacemaker requirement was more than two times in patients with atrial fibrillation, sinus bradycardia and first degree AV block. Valvular heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension were also significantly more in patients with pacemaker implantation. Age (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.560; 95% CI: 0.410/0.710, p < .0001) and PR interval (SMD: 0.351; 95% CI: 0.150/0.553, p = .001) were significantly higher in patients with pacemaker requirement. Heart conduction disorders, atrial arrhythmias and underlying medical conditions are main predictors of pacemaker device implantation following loop recorder installation in unexplained syncopal patients.

Rationale and Design of the Randomized Bayesian Multicenter COME-TAVI Trial in Patients With a New Onset Left Bundle Branch Block

Patients with new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are at risk of developing delayed high-degree atrioventricular block. Management of new-onset LBBB post-TAVI remains controversial. In the Comparison of a Clinical Monitoring Strategy Versus Electrophysiology-Guided Algorithmic Approach in Patients With a New LBBB After TAVI (COME-TAVI) trial, consenting patients with new-onset LBBB that persists on day 2 after TAVI, meeting exclusion/inclusion criteria, are randomized to an electrophysiological study (EPS)-guided approach or 30-day electrocardiographic monitoring. In the EPS-guided approach, patients with a His to ventricle (HV) interval ≥ 65 ms undergo permanent pacemaker implantation. Patients randomized to noninvasive monitoring receive a wearable continuous electrocardiographic recording and transmitting device for 30 days. Follow-up will be performed at 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary endpoint is a composite outcome designed to capture net clinical benefit. The endpoint incorporates major consequences of both strategies in patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVI, as follows: (i) sudden cardiac death; (ii) syncope; (iii) atrioventricular conduction disorder requiring a pacemaker (for a class I or IIa indication); and (iv) complications related to the pacemaker or EPS. The trial incorporates a Bayesian design with a noninformative prior, outcome-adaptive randomization (initially 1:1), and 2 prespecified interim analyses once 25% and 50% of the anticipated number of primary endpoints are reached. The trial is event-driven, with an anticipated upper limit of 452 patients required to reach 77 primary outcome events over 12 months of follow-up. In summary, the aim of this Bayesian multicentre randomized trial is to compare 2 management strategies in patients with new-onset LBBB post-TAVI-an EPS-guided approach vs noninvasive 30-day monitoring. Trial registration number: NCT03303612.

Arrhythmic syncope: From diagnosis to management

Syncope is a concerning symptom that affects a large proportion of patients. It can be related to a heterogeneous group of pathologies ranging from trivial causes to diseases with a high risk of sudden death. However, benign causes are the most frequent, and identifying high-risk patients with potentially severe etiologies is crucial to establish an accurate diagnosis, initiate effective therapy, and alter the prognosis. The term cardiac syncope refers to those episodes where the cause of the cerebral hypoperfusion is directly related to a cardiac disorder, while arrhythmic syncope is cardiac syncope specifically due to rhythm disorders. Indeed, arrhythmias are the most common cause of cardiac syncope. Both bradyarrhythmia and tachyarrhythmia can cause a sudden decrease in cardiac output and produce syncope. In this review, we summarized the main guidelines in the management of patients with syncope of presumed arrhythmic origin. Therefore, we presented a thorough approach to syncope work-up through different tests depending on the clinical characteristics of the patients, risk stratification, and the management of syncope in different scenarios such as structural heart disease and channelopathies.

Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Bradyarrhythmias in Patients Screened for Atrial Fibrillation vs Usual Care: Post Hoc Analysis of the LOOP Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

There is increasing interest in heart rhythm monitoring and technologies to detect subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF), which may lead to incidental diagnosis of bradyarrhythmias.

Objective

To assess bradyarrhythmia prevalence and prognostic significance in persons screened for AF using implantable loop recorder (ILR) compared with unscreened persons.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a post hoc analysis of the Implantable Loop Recorder Detection of Atrial Fibrillation to Prevent Stroke (LOOP) randomized clinical trial, which took place in 4 sites in Denmark. Participants were 70 years or older without known AF but diagnosed with at least 1 of the following: hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, or prior stroke. Participants were recruited by letter invitation between January 31, 2014, and May 17, 2016. The median (IQR) follow-up period was 65 (59-70) months. Analysis took place between February and June 2022.

Interventions

ILR screening for AF with treatment of any bradyarrhythmia left to the discretion of the treating physician (ILR group) vs usual care (control group).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Adjudicated bradyarrhythmia episodes, pacemaker implantation, syncope, and sudden cardiovascular death.

Results

A total of 6004 participants were randomized (mean [SD] age, 75 [4.1] years; 2837 [47.3%] female; 5444 [90.7%] with hypertension; 1224 [20.4%] with prior syncope), 4503 to control and 1501 to ILR. Bradyarrhythmia was diagnosed in 172 participants (3.8%) in the control group vs 312 participants (20.8%) in the ILR group (hazard ratio [HR], 6.21 [95% CI, 5.15-7.48]; P < .001), and these were asymptomatic in 41 participants (23.8%) vs 249 participants (79.8%), respectively. The most common bradyarrhythmia was sinus node dysfunction followed by high-grade atrioventricular block. Risk factors for bradyarrhythmia included higher age, male sex, and prior syncope. A pacemaker was implanted in 132 participants (2.9%) vs 67 (4.5%) (HR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.14-2.06]; P < .001), syncope occurred in 120 (2.7%) vs 33 (2.2%) (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.56-1.22]; P = .34), and sudden cardiovascular death occurred in 49 (1.1%) vs 18 (1.2%) (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.64-1.90]; P = .71) in the control and ILR groups, respectively. Bradyarrhythmias were associated with subsequent syncope, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, with no interaction between bradyarrhythmia and randomization group.

Conclusions and Relevance

More than 1 in 5 persons older than 70 years with cardiovascular risk factors can be diagnosed with bradyarrhythmias when long-term continous monitoring for AF is applied. In this study, ILR screening led to a 6-fold increase in bradyarrhythmia diagnoses and a significant increase in pacemaker implantations compared with usual care but no change in the risk of syncope or sudden death.

Bedside Carotid Sinus Massage for Syncope Evaluation With Bifascicular Block and First-Degree Atrioventricular Block

Symptomatic bifascicular block (BFB) with a reversible high-grade atrioventricular block (AVB) is an overlooked cause of syncope with differing diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. We present a case of a 79-year-old gentleman with multiple episodes of cardiac syncope. Initial electrocardiogram revealed a left bundle branch block and first-degree AVB worsened by bedside carotid sinus massage (CSM) obviating the need for electrophysiologic (EP) studies or continuous electrocardiographic monitoring for further evaluation. This case highlights the importance of CSM as a useful clinical tool in addition to EP studies and internal loop recorder (ILR) placement for assessment and appropriateness of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. It also sheds light on the differing management protocols between EP studies and ILR evaluation versus empiric PPM implantation for patients with cardiac syncope secondary to BFB and AVB.

Impact of bundle branch block morphology on outcomes of patients with syncope and bifascicular block: A SPRITELY (POST 3) substudy

BACKGROUND

Permanent pacing is often considered for patients with syncope and bifascicular block.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether QRS morphology or other electrocardiographic characteristics can identify patients who may benefit from permanent pacing.

METHODS

The Syncope: Pacing or Recording in the Later Years (SPRITELY) trial was a multicenter trial that randomized patients with bifascicular block and syncope (n = 115) to empiric pacemaker implantation vs implantable loop recorder (ILR) monitoring. In this SPRITELY subanalysis, baseline 12-lead electrocardiograms were evaluated for bundle branch block (BBB) morphology, QRS width, and PR and QT intervals and their impact on clinical outcomes was assessed.

RESULTS

There were 41 patients with left BBB (36%), 69 patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) and left anterior fascicular block (60%), and 5 patients with RBBB and left posterior fascicular block (4%). Pacemaker implant compared with ILR was associated with a significant reduction of major study-related events (MSREs) in both patients with left BBB (23.8% vs 78.9%; P = .001) and those with RBBB (27% vs 72.9%; P < .0001). Similarly, a reduction of MSREs was observed in both patients with trifascicular block (23% vs 84.6%; P < .0001) and those with bifascicular block (26.6% vs 68.9%; P = .002). In the group randomized to ILR monitoring, the type of BBB was not a predictor of recurrent syncope (P = .30), bradycardia requiring pacemaker (P = .15), or MSREs (P = .42). The presence of PR interval prolongation or QRS width in this group did not predict MSREs (P = .22 and P = .96, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients with syncope and bifascicular block, pacemaker implantation reduces adverse events as compared with ILR monitoring, irrespective of the type of BBB or the presence of PR interval prolongation.

Low incidence of arrhythmic syncope and pacemaker implantation in older patients with bifascicular block and implantable cardiac monitor

BACKGROUND

In patients with unexplained syncope, bifascicular block (BFB) is considered associated with syncope due to either heart block or sinus arrest. Immediate or delayed pacemaker (PM) implantation after ECG documentation of syncopal recurrence by means of implantable cardiac monitors (ICM) is still debated. We aimed to assess the incidence of recurrent syncope and guideline-based PM implantation in patients with syncope and BFB implanted with ICM.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with syncope and BFB followed at two tertiary care syncope units and implanted with ICM from 2012 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients with ≥2 clinical visits and ≥ 18 years of age were included. Incidence of a Class I indication for PM implantation was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Of 635 syncope patients implanted with an ICM, 55 (8.7%) had a BFB and were included. Median age at implantation was 75 [interquartile range, IQR:64-81] years, and 28(49.1%) were women. At 26 [IQR:12-41] months follow-up, 20 (36.3%,16.3%/year) patients experienced syncope: in 6(10.9%) patients syncope was classified 'arrhythmic' with a higher prevalence in older individuals (p = 0.048). PM implantation (N = 14,25.5%) was more frequent in patients ≥75 years (p = 0.024). At survival analysis, patients ≥75 years were at highest risk of arrhythmic syncope and guideline directed PM implantation (Hazard Ratio: 4.5, 95% Confidence Intervals 1.5-13.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Most older patients with syncope who received an ICM did not have events during follow-up. One-in-three experienced syncope, and an even smaller number had an arrhythmic syncope with indication for PM implantation. Older age was strongly associated with PM implantation.

Arrhythmic risk in single or recurrent episodes of unexplained syncope with complete bundle branch block

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Patients with a single syncopal episode (SSE) and complete bundle branch block (cBBB) are frequently managed more conservatively than patients with recurrent episodes (RSE). The objective of this study was to analyze if there are differences between patients with single or recurrent unexplained syncope and cBBB in arrhythmic risk, the diagnostic yield of tests, and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Cohort study of consecutive patients with unexplained syncope and cBBB with a median follow-up time of 3 years. The patients were evaluated via a stepwise workup protocol based on electrophysiological study (EPS) and long-term follow-up with an implantable cardiac monitor.

RESULTS

Of the 503 patients included in the study, 238 (47.3%) had had only 1 syncopal episode. The risk of an arrhythmic syncope was similar in both groups (58.8% in SSE vs 57.0% in RSE; P=.68), also after adjustment for possible confounding variables (HR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.81-1.38; P=.674). No significant differences between the groups were found in the EPS results and implantable cardiac monitor diagnostic yield. A total of 141 (59.2%) patients with SSE and 154 (58.1%) patients with RSE required cardiac device implantation (P=.797). After appropriate treatment, 35 (7%) patients had recurrence of syncope. The recurrence rate and mortality were also similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cBBB and unexplained syncope are at high risk of an arrhythmic etiology, even after the first syncopal episode. Patients with SSE and RSE have a similar arrhythmic risk and similar outcomes, and therefore there is no clinical justification for not managing them in the same manner.

Clinical Predictors of Pacing Device Implantation in Implantable Cardiac Monitor Recipients for Unexplained Syncope

Background

Implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) help investigate the cause of unexplained syncope, but the probability and predictors of needing a pacing device thereafter remain unclear.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who received ICM insertion for unexplained syncope with suspected arrhythmic etiology. The data were obtained from a nationwide database obtained between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2020. Multivariable mixed-effects survival analysis was performed to identify predictors of pacing device implantation (PDI), and a risk score model was developed accordingly.

Results

In total, 2905 patients (age: 72 years [range: 60-78]) implanted with ICMs to investigate the cause of syncope were analyzed. During the median follow-up period of 128 days (range: 68-209) days, 473 patients (16%) underwent PDI. Older age, history of atrial fibrillation, bundle branch block (BBB), and diabetes were independent predictors of PDI in multivariable analysis. A risk score model was developed with scores ranging from 0 to 32 points. When patients with the lowest quartile score (0-13 points) were used as a reference, those with higher quartiles had a higher risk of PDI (second quartile: 14-15 points, hazard ratio [HR]: 3.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.62-5.68; third quartile: 16-18 points, HR: 4.67, 95% CI: 3.14-6.94; fourth quartile: 19-32 points, HR: 6.59, 95% CI: 4.47-9.71).

Conclusions

The 4 identified predictors are easily assessed during the initial evaluation of patients with syncope. They may help identify patients with a higher risk of requiring permanent PDI.

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.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of the Syncope: Pacing or Recording In ThE Later Years Trial

Background

The Syncope: Pacing or Recording in the Later Years (SPRITELY) trial reported that a strategy of empiric permanent pacing in patients with syncope and bifascicular block reduces major adverse events more effectively than acting on the results of an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM). Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of using the ICM, compared with a pacemaker (PM), in the management of older adults (age > 50 years) with bifascicular block and syncope enrolled in the SPRITELY trial.

Methods

SPRITELY was a pragmatic, open-label randomized controlled trial with a median follow-up of 33 months. The primary outcome of this analysis is the cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Resource utilization and utility data were collected prospectively, and outcomes at 2 years were compared between the 2 arms. A decision analytic model simulated a 3-year time horizon.

Results

The mean cost incurred by participants randomized to the PM arm was $9918, compared to $15,416 (both in Canadian dollars) for participants randomized to the ICM arm. The ICM strategy resulted in 0.167 QALYs fewer than the PM strategy. Cost and QALY outcomes are sensitive to the proportion of participants randomized to the ICM arm who subsequently required PM insertion. In 40,000 iterations of probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the PM strategy resulted in cost-savings in 99.7% of iterations, compared with the ICM strategy.

Conclusions

The PM strategy was dominant—that is, less costly and estimated to result in a greater number of QALYs. For patients with unexplained syncope, bifascicular block, and age > 50 years, a PM is more likely to be cost-effective than an ICM.