Method of pacing does not affect the recurrence of syncope in carotid sinus syndrome.
ABSTRACT Pacemaker therapy is effective in reducing recurrent syncope in patients with symptomatic carotid sinus hypersensitivity (CSH), yet the optimal pacing modality for this syndrome is not known. The objective of this study is to prospectively investigate the impact of three pacing methods (DDDR vs DDDR with sudden bradycardia response [SBR] vs VVI) on recurrent syncope and quality of life.
Twenty-one patients with symptomatic CSH (syncope or near syncope) were randomized to VVI, DDDR, or DDDR with SBR on a double-blinded basis in a sequential crossover fashion with 6 months in each mode. The primary endpoints were recurrent events and quality of life (assessed by SF-36). The mean number of events and SF-36 scores were compared.
At baseline, over the preceding 6 months, there were a total of 29 syncopal events and 258 presyncopal events among 21 patients. Following pacing in any mode, the total number of these syncopal events reduced to two in two patients (P < 0.001) and 17 presyncopal events (P < 0.001) in 12 patients. The mean number of events was not significantly different between the three pacing methods. SF-36 scores revealed some minor benefits of DDDR pacing versus baseline in the categories, but no pacing method was found to be superior.
The study was unable to confirm the initial study hypothesis of a superiority of one pacing modality over another. Quality of life measures allude to potential benefit from DDDR pacing alone.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cardiac pacing can be used to treat carotid sinus syndrome (CSS), but clinical studies have shown conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of pacing for CSS. A systematic search of publications in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library without language restriction was performed. Prospective randomized studies that compared cardiac pacing with standard therapy or pacing with different algorithms were included if the recurrence of syncope or the number of falls was observed. Eight studies enrolling 540 patients were identified. In open-label studies, the recurrence of syncope was reduced significantly by cardiac pacing compared with standard therapy. The recurrence of syncope was not different between single- and dual-chamber pacing, but a lower rate of patients with pre-syncope was observed in the group with dual-chamber pacing. Double-blind clinical studies failed to observe the role of cardiac pacing for preventing falls in patients with CSS. The results of meta-analysis supported the use of cardiac pacing for patients with dominant cardioinhibitory CSS.Clinical Autonomic Research 03/2014; · 1.48 Impact Factor
- Journal of the American College of Cardiology 07/2012; 60(7):682-703. · 14.09 Impact Factor