Aim: The benefit of cardiac pacing in patients with severe recurrent reflex syncope and asystole induced by tilt testing has not been established. The usefulness of tilt-table test to select candidates for cardiac pacing is controversial.
Methods and results: We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years or older who had at least two episodes of unpredictable severe reflex syncope during the last year and a tilt-induced syncope with an asystolic pause longer than 3 s, to receive either an active (pacing ON; 63 patients) or an inactive (pacing OFF; 64 patients) dual-chamber pacemaker with closed loop stimulation (CLS). The primary endpoint was the time to first recurrence of syncope. Patients and independent outcome assessors were blinded to the assigned treatment. After a median follow-up of 11.2 months, syncope occurred in significantly fewer patients in the pacing group than in the control group [10 (16%) vs. 34 (53%); hazard ratio, 0.23; P = 0.00005]. The estimated syncope recurrence rate at 1 year was 19% (pacing) and 53% (control) and at 2 years, 22% (pacing) and 68% (control). A combined endpoint of syncope or presyncope occurred in significantly fewer patients in the pacing group [23 (37%) vs. 40 (63%); hazard ratio, 0.44; P = 0.002]. Minor device-related adverse events were reported in five patients (4%).
Conclusion: In patients aged 40 years or older, affected by severe recurrent reflex syncope and tilt-induced asystole, dual-chamber pacemaker with CLS is highly effective in reducing the recurrences of syncope. Our findings support the inclusion of tilt testing as a useful method to select candidates for cardiac pacing.
Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02324920, Eudamed number CIV-05-013546.
Keywords: Asystolic syncope; Cardiac pacing; Closed loop; Pacemaker; Reflex syncope; Syncope; Tilt testing; stimulation.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.