Multicentre open label randomised controlled trial of immediate enhanced ambulatory ECG monitoring versus standard monitoring in acute unexplained syncope patients: the ASPIRED study.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosing underlying arrhythmia in emergency department (ED) syncope patients is difficult. There is a evidence that diagnostic yield for detecting underlying arrhythmia is highest when cardiac monitoring devices are applied early, ideally at the index visit. This strategy has the potential to change current syncope management from low diagnostic yield Holter to higher yield ambulatory monitoring, reduce episodes of syncope, reduce risk of recurrence and its potential serious consequences, reduce hospital admissions, reduce overall health costs and increase quality of life by allowing earlier diagnosis, treatment and exclusion of clinically important arrhythmias. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This is a UK open prospective parallel group multicentre randomised controlled trial of an immediate 14-day ambulatory patch heart monitor vs standard care in 2234 patients presenting acutely with unexplained syncope. Our patient focused primary endpoint will be number of episodes of syncope at 1 year. Health economic evaluation will estimate the incremental cost per syncope episode avoided and quality-adjusted life year gained. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Informed consent for participation will be sought. The ASPIRED trial received a favourable ethical opinion from South East Scotland Research Ethics Committee 01 (21/SS/0073). Results will be disseminated via scientific publication, lay summary and visual abstract. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 10278811.

Complications and prognosis of patients undergoing apical or septal right ventricular pacing.

Objectives: Optimal right ventricular lead placement remains controversial. Large studies investigating the safety and long-term prognosis of apical and septal right ventricular lead placement have been lacking. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker insertion for high-degree atrioventricular block at Edinburgh Heart Centre were investigated. Periprocedural 30-day complications were defined (infection/bleeding/pneumothorax/tamponade/lead displacement). Long-term clinical outcomes were obtained from the General Register of Scotland and electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, new heart failure, hospitalisation for a major cardiovascular event, as per the CArdiac REsynchronization in Heart Failure trial. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, new heart failure and their composite. Results: 820 patients were included, 204 (25%) paced from the septum and 616 (75%) from the apex. All baseline variables were similar with the exception of age (septal: 73.2±1.1 vs apical: 76.9±0.5 years, p<0.001). Procedure duration (58±23 vs 55±25 min, p=0.3), complication rates (18 (8.8) vs 46 (7.5)%, p=0.5) and postimplant QRS duration (152 (23) vs 154 (27) ms, p=0.4) were similar. After 1041 days (IQR 564), 278 patients met the primary endpoint, with no difference between the septal and apical groups in unadjusted (HR 0.86 (95% CIs 0.64 to 1.15)) or multivariable analysis correcting for age, gender and comorbidity (HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.30)). Similarly, no differences were observed in the secondary endpoints. Conclusions: This large real-world cohort of patients undergoing right ventricular lead placement in the septum or apex demonstrated no difference in procedural complications nor long-term clinical outcomes. Both pacing strategies appear reasonable in routine practice.