Search

Background: Patients with syncope and bundle branch block (BBB) are at risk for atrioventricular block (AVB). Electrophysiological study (EPS) can help in identifying patients at higher risk for AVB, but the false-negative rate is remarkable. Few data on the predictors of the need for pacemaker implantation during follow-up have been reported., Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the rate of patients who need pacemaker implantation after negative EPS and predictive factors., Methods: A single-center prospective study of 159 consecutive patients (73.9 ± 12.1 years; male 64.9%) with syncope and BBB (January 2012-December 2016) and negative EPS was conducted. An implantable loop recorder was implanted., Results: After 27.9 ± 10.8 months of follow-up, 39 patients (24.8%) underwent pacemaker implantation because of bradyarrhythmia. In the univariate analysis, bifascicular (right BBB + left fascicular block) block, bifascicular block + long PR interval, conduction disturbance different from isolated right BBB, HV ≥60 ms, and HV ≥70 ms after class I drug challenge were predictors of pacemaker implantation. In the multivariate analysis, only bifascicular block (hazard ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval 1.4-4.8; P = .04) and HV interval ≥60 ms (hazard ratio 3.5; 95% confidence interval 1.8-6.2; P <.001) were statistically significant. A risk score according to the multivariate model identified 3 levels of pacemaker implantation rate (13.5%, 32.7%, and 66.7%; P <.001). No death or severe trauma related to bradyarrhythmia occurred., Conclusion: The strategy of an implantable loop recorder in patients with syncope and BBB is safe after negative EPS, but some patients might need pacemaker implantation during follow-up. A risk score based on HV ≥60 ms and bifascicular block can be useful in identifying patients at risk for advanced AVB after negative EPS., (Copyright © 2018 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to compare the differences between procainamide and flecainide to stress the His-Purkinje system during electrophysiological study (EPS) in patients with syncope and bundle branch block (BBB)., Background: Patients with syncope and BBB are at risk of developing atrioventricular block. EPS is recommended including class I drug challenge to unmask His-Purkinje disease in cases with baseline normal His-ventricular interval. There is little data on differences between different class I drugs., Methods: This was a prospective study of all consecutive patients undergoing EPS for syncope and BBB at a single center (January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2017). Of those patients with negative baseline EPS, 2 cohorts were compared: group A (historical cohort: procainamide) and group B (flecainide)., Results: During the study, 271 patients (age 73.9 ± 12.1 years, 64.9% male, QRS duration: 139.4 ± 13.9 ms) underwent EPS. In 166, baseline EPS was negative and class I drug challenge was performed (90 procainamide, 76 flecainide). The final value and percentage increase in the His-ventricular interval (76 ± 16 ms vs. 64 ± 10 ms and 22.5 ± 6.2% vs. 11.8 ± 5.3%; p < 0.001) and diagnostic yield (14.5% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.04) were higher with flecainide. No differences were found in baseline characteristics. During follow-up (25.8 ± 6.3 months), 39 patients (24.8%) with negative EPS (19.2% with flecainide vs. 30.1% with procainamide: relative risk: 5.1; 95% confidence interval: 2.6 to 10.2; p < 0. 001) received a pacemaker., Conclusions: Flecainide has a higher diagnostic yield than does procainamide in patients with BBB, syncope, and negative baseline EPS due to a greater increase of the His-ventricular interval. Additionally, there is a lesser need for pacemaker implantation in patients in whom the class I drug test using flecainide was negative., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Electrophysiological study (EPS) is indicated in patients with syncope and bundle branch block (BBB). Data about predictors of positive EPS in these patients is scarce., Objective: To assess clinical and electrocardiographic (ECG) predictors of positive EPS in patients with syncope and BBB., Methods: Observational single-center study that included all consecutive patients with syncope and BBB that underwent EPS from January 2011 to June 2017. Results of EPS were considered positive according to current ESC syncope guidelines., Results: During study period, 271 patients were included (64.9% male, age: 73.9 ± 12.2 years, number of syncopal episodes: 2.4 ± 2.5, LVEF: 56.1 ± 9.9%). Type of BBB: RBBB + LAFB/LPFB in 39.8%, isolated LBBB in 38.7% and isolated RBBB in 18.5% of the patients. Duration of QRS and PR interval were 141.9 ± 16.7 and 182.8 ± 52.2 milliseconds. EPS was positive in 41.7% of the patients. In multivariate analysis, conduction disturbance pattern and long PR interval (OR 8.6; 2.9-25; P < 0.0001) were predictors of positive EPS. Conduction disturbance patterns related with positive EPS were: BBB different than isolated RBBB (OR 15.2; 2.2-23.4; P = 0.005), LBBB or RBBB+long PR + left fascicular block (OR 4.5; 1.06-20.01; P < 0.042), and RBBB+left fascicular block compared with LBBB (OR 4.8; 1.2-16.7; P = 0.025). Clinical factors and syncope characteristics were not related with EPS result., Conclusions: Diagnostic yield of EPS in patients with syncope and BBB is moderate (41%). Type of conduction disturbance pattern and PR interval are associated with the electrophysiological (EP) test result. Patients with LBBB or bifascicular block have the highest rate of positive EP test. Long PR interval increases the proportion of positive EPS in all conduction disturbance patterns., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

In this communication we review those trials that have contributed in recent years to improving our knowledge on the management (diagnosis and treatment) of syncope. In this regard, most recent trials focus on vasovagal syncope (VVS) and consequently these will be the focus of this manuscript. In essence, from a diagnostic perspective the ISSUE studies demonstrate the value of insertable loop recorders (ILR), while in terms of treatment, in the case of VVS current data strongly support use of non-pharmacologic treatment as a primary approach. There is no clear evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment with the possible exception of midodrine. Further, the most recent ISSUE trials suggest that in older very symptomatic patients with VVS in whom an asystole has been documented during spontaneous episode or possibly after ATP administration, implantation of a permanent pacemaker (PPM) can be effective. Which pacing or programming mode will be the more beneficial has not been completely clarified. Management of other forms of neurally-mediated syncope (e.g., carotid sinus syndrome) or other causes of syncope has not been addressed by clinical trials. In those cases, direction is provided by older evidence, the vast majority of which is based on observational reports or small non-randomized patient series., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Complete conduction block of the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) reduces atrial flutter recurrences after ablation. Incremental rapid pacing may distinguish slow conduction from complete CTI conduction block., Methods and Results: Fifty-two patients (67 +/- 9 years) undergoing 55 CTI ablation procedures were included. With ablation, double potentials (DPs) separated by an isoelectric line of > or =30 ms were obtained. Incremental atrial pacing (600-250 ms) was performed from coronary sinus (CS) and low lateral right atrium (LLRA). A <20 ms increase in the DPs distance during incremental pacing was indexed as complete CTI block. In 8 patients, an initial <20 ms DPs distance increase was noted; direct complete isthmus block was suggested and no additional ablation performed. In the remaining, the CTI line was remapped for conduction gaps and additional radiofrequency energy pulses applied. Complete block, as indexed by incremental pacing, occurred in 46 of 55 procedures, with one flutter recurrence (follow-up 8 +/- 2 months): DPs interval variation of 116 +/- 20 to 123 +/- 20 ms (CS), P = 0.21; and 122 +/- 25 to 135 +/- 35 ms (LLRA), P = 0.17. The remaining 9 patients (persistent rate-dependent DPs increase) presented 3 flutter recurrences, P = 0.01: DP distance from 127 +/- 15 to 161 +/- 18 ms (CS), P < 0.001; and 114 +/- 24 to 142 +/- 10 ms (LLRA), P = 0.007., Conclusion: Incremental pacing distinguishes complete CTI block from persistent conduction. Such identification, accompanied by additional ablation to achieve block, should minimize flutter recurrences after ablative therapy.