Permanent pacemaker implantation in unexplained syncope patients with electrophysiology study-proven atrioventricular node disease.

OBJECTIVE: Syncope, whose cause is unknown after an initial assessment, has an uncertain prognosis. It is critical to identify patients at the highest risk who may require a pacemaker and to identify the cause of recurrent syncope to prescribe proper therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of permanent pacing on the incidence of syncope in patients with unexplained syncope and electrophysiology study (EPS)-proven atrioventricular (AV) node disease. METHODS: This was an observational study based on a prospective registry of 236 consecutive patients (60.20 ± 18.66 years, 63.1% male, 60.04 ± 9.50 bpm) presenting with recurrent unexplained syncope attacks admitted to our hospital for invasive EPS. The decision to implant a permanent pacemaker was made in all cases by the attending physicians according to the results of the EPS. A total of 135 patients received the antibradycardia pacemaker (ABP), while 101 patients were declined. RESULTS: The mean of reported syncope episodes was 1.97 ± 1.10 (or presyncope 2.17 ± 1.50) before they were referred for a combined EP-guided diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Over a mean follow-up of approximately 4 years (49.19 ± 29.58 months), the primary outcome event (syncope) occurred in 31 of 236 patients (13.1%), and 6 of 135 (4.4%) patients in the ABP group as compared to 25 of 101 (24.8%) in the no pacemaker group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among patients with a history of unexplained syncope, a set of positivity criteria for the presence of EPS-defined AV node disease identifies a subset of patients who will benefit from permanent pacing.

Permanent pacemaker implantation in unexplained syncope patients with borderline sinus bradycardia and electrophysiology study-proven sinus node disease.

BACKGROUND: Significant sinus bradycardia (SB) in the context of sinus node dysfunction (SND) has been associated with neurological symptoms. The objective was to evaluate the effect of permanent pacing on the incidence of syncope in patients with rather mild degrees of SB, unexplained syncope, and "positive" invasive electrophysiologic testing. METHODS: This was an observational study based on a prospective registry of 122 consecutive mild SB patients (61.90 ± 18.28 years, 61.5% male, 57.88 ± 7.73 bpm) presenting with recurrent unexplained pre and syncope attacks admitted to our hospital for invasive electrophysiology study (EPS). Τhe implantation of a permanent antibradycardia pacemaker (ABP) was offered to all patients according to the results of the EPS. Eighty patients received the ABP, while 42 denied. RESULTS: The mean of reported syncope episodes was 2.23 ± 1.29 (or presyncope 2.36 ± 1.20) in the last 12 months before they were referred for a combined EP guided diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Over a mean follow-up of approximately 4 years (50.39 ± 32.40 months), the primary outcome event (syncope) occurred in 18 of 122 patients (14.8%), 6 of 80 (7.5%) in the ABP group as compared to 12 of 42 (28.6%) in the no pacemaker group (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with mild degree of SB and a history of unexplained syncope, a set of positivity criteria for the presence of EPS defined SND after differentiating reflex syncope, identifies a subset of patients who will benefit from permanent pacing.

Correlation of noninvasive electrocardiography with invasive electrophysiology in syncope of unknown origin: implications from a large syncope database.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of syncope can be expensive, unfocussed, and unrevealing yet, failure to diagnose an arrhythmic cause of syncope is a major problem. We investigate the utility of noninvasive electrocardiographic evaluation (12-lead ECG and 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiographic recordings) to predict electrophysiology study results in patients with undiagnosed syncope. METHODS: We evaluated 421 patients with undiagnosed syncope who had an electrocardiogram (ECG), an electrophysiology study, and 24-hour ambulatory monitoring. Noninvasive testing was used to predict electrophysiology testing outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusting for age, sex, presence of heart disease, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was used to assess independent predictors for sinus node disease, atrioventricular node disease, and induction of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. RESULTS: Patients were divided into four groups: group 1, abnormal ECG and ambulatory monitor; group 2, abnormal ECG only; group 3, abnormal ambulatory monitor; and group 4, normal ECG and ambulatory monitor. The likelihood of finding at least one abnormality during electrophysiologic testing among the four groups was highest in group 1 (82.2%) and lower in groups 2 and 3 (68.1% and 33.7%, respectively). In group 4, any electrophysiology study abnormality was low (9.1%). Odds ratios (OR) were 35.9 (P < 0.001), 17.8 (P < 0.001), and 3.5 (P = 0.064) for abnormal findings on electrophysiology study, respectively (first three groups vs the fourth one). ECG and ambulatory monitor results predicted results of electrophysiology testing. CONCLUSION: Abnormal ECG findings on noninvasive testing are well correlated with potential brady- or/and tachyarrhythmic causes of syncope, in electrophysiology study of patients with undiagnosed syncope.