Search

Background. Pacemakers are used to treat syncope in patients with bradyarrhythmia; however, the risk of recurrent syncope has only been investigated in few and smaller studies. Objective. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk of recurrent syncope after pacemaker implantation in patients with bradyarrhythmia and prior syncope. Methods. This retrospective, population-based cohort study included patients with a prior syncope and implantation of a pacemaker using data from the Danish nationwide registers from 1996 to 2017. Cumulative incidence and cox regression was used to estimate the 5-year incidence and the risk of recurrent syncope, respectively. Results. In total, 11,126 patients (median age: 78 years, interquartile range: 69–85, 56% male) were included and the 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrent syncope was 19.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 18.8–20.3%). Sinus node dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.29, 95%CI: 1.17–1.42) and unspecified type of bradyarrhythmia (HR: 1.32, 95%CI: 1.15–1.52) were associated with an increased risk of syncope compared to advanced atrioventricular (AV) block. Male sex (HR: 1.22, 95%CI: 1.22–1.34), cerebrovascular disease (HR: 1.17, 95%CI: 1.05–1.30), and prior number of syncopes were significantly associated with a higher HR of recurrent syncope. Conclusion. Almost one-in-five patients with bradyarrhythmia and prior syncope who had a pacemaker implanted had a recurrent syncope within five years. A higher risk of syncope was observed among patients with sinus node dysfunction and unspecified type of bradyarrhythmia compared to AV block. Male sex, cerebrovascular disease, and prior number of syncopes were associated risk factors of recurrent syncope.

ImportanceThere is increasing interest in heart rhythm monitoring and technologies to detect subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF), which may lead to incidental diagnosis of bradyarrhythmias.ObjectiveTo assess bradyarrhythmia prevalence and prognostic significance in persons screened for AF using implantable loop recorder (ILR) compared with unscreened persons.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a post hoc analysis of the Implantable Loop Recorder Detection of Atrial Fibrillation to Prevent Stroke (LOOP) randomized clinical trial, which took place in 4 sites in Denmark. Participants were 70 years or older without known AF but diagnosed with at least 1 of the following: hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, or prior stroke. Participants were recruited by letter invitation between January 31, 2014, and May 17, 2016. The median (IQR) follow-up period was 65 (59-70) months. Analysis took place between February and June 2022.InterventionsILR screening for AF with treatment of any bradyarrhythmia left to the discretion of the treating physician (ILR group) vs usual care (control group).Main Outcomes and MeasuresAdjudicated bradyarrhythmia episodes, pacemaker implantation, syncope, and sudden cardiovascular death.ResultsA total of 6004 participants were randomized (mean [SD] age, 75 [4.1] years; 2837 [47.3%] female; 5444 [90.7%] with hypertension; 1224 [20.4%] with prior syncope), 4503 to control and 1501 to ILR. Bradyarrhythmia was diagnosed in 172 participants (3.8%) in the control group vs 312 participants (20.8%) in the ILR group (hazard ratio [HR], 6.21 [95% CI, 5.15-7.48]; P P P = .34), and sudden cardiovascular death occurred in 49 (1.1%) vs 18 (1.2%) (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.64-1.90]; P = .71) in the control and ILR groups, respectively. Bradyarrhythmias were associated with subsequent syncope, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, with no interaction between bradyarrhythmia and randomization group.Conclusions and RelevanceMore than 1 in 5 persons older than 70 years with cardiovascular risk factors can be diagnosed with bradyarrhythmias when long-term continous monitoring for AF is applied. In this study, ILR screening led to a 6-fold increase in bradyarrhythmia diagnoses and a significant increase in pacemaker implantations compared with usual care but no change in the risk of syncope or sudden death.

INTRODUCTION: Heart rate decrease during epileptic seizures is rare and should be considered in patients with unusual or refractory episodes of syncope or in patients with a history suggestive of both epilepsy and syncope. We systematically reviewed the literature to better understand the clinical signs and risk factors of ictal heart rate decreases.MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a literature-search on "ictal bradycardia" and "ictal asystole" in Pubmed and added papers from the references and personal archives. Articles relating to animal studies, seizures without ictal decrease of heart rate, cases without simultaneous electroencephalography (EEG) and electrocardiography (ECG), convulsive syncopes, or cases with bradycardia before seizure onset and articles written in other languages than English, Dutch, German, French, or Spanish were excluded. Full texts of the remaining articles were screened for cases of ictal bradycardia or ictal asystole. Cases were selected on the basis of a self-designed quality score. The relationship of RR wave interval of at least 5 s, signs of syncope, and EEG signs of ischemia were analyzed with chi-square test and identifying 95% confidence intervals.RESULTS: Ictal bradycardia and ictal asystole predominantly occurred during focal seizures with loss of awareness (proportion in the combined group of bradycardia and asystole (p1 + 2) = 0.85) in people with mainly left lateralized (p1 + 2 = 0.64; p = 0.001) temporal lobe seizures (p1 + 2 = 0.91). Seizures with ictal asystole typically started with a heart rate decrease. During ictal asystole in the majority of cases, not only the clinical signs of syncope occurred (change of proportion (Δp) = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48-0.86; p CONCLUSION: In the ictal bradycardia syndrome, signs of syncope disrupt the semiology of ongoing seizures and are associated with EEG signs of brain ischemia and the duration of the cardiac arrhythmia.

INTRODUCTION: Heart rate decrease during epileptic seizures is rare and should be considered in patients with unusual or refractory episodes of syncope or in patients with a history suggestive of both epilepsy and syncope. We systematically reviewed the literature to better understand the clinical signs and risk factors of ictal heart rate decreases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a literature-search on "ictal bradycardia" and "ictal asystole" in Pubmed and added papers from the references and personal archives. Articles relating to animal studies, seizures without ictal decrease of heart rate, cases without simultaneous electroencephalography (EEG) and electrocardiography (ECG), convulsive syncopes, or cases with bradycardia before seizure onset and articles written in other languages than English, Dutch, German, French, or Spanish were excluded. Full texts of the remaining articles were screened for cases of ictal bradycardia or ictal asystole. Cases were selected on the basis of a self-designed quality score. The relationship of RR wave interval of at least 5 s, signs of syncope, and EEG signs of ischemia were analyzed with chi-square test and identifying 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Ictal bradycardia and ictal asystole predominantly occurred during focal seizures with loss of awareness (proportion in the combined group of bradycardia and asystole (p1 + 2) = 0.85) in people with mainly left lateralized (p1 + 2 = 0.64; p = 0.001) temporal lobe seizures (p1 + 2 = 0.91). Seizures with ictal asystole typically started with a heart rate decrease. During ictal asystole in the majority of cases, not only the clinical signs of syncope occurred (change of proportion (Δp) = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48-0.86; p

The 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE Expert Consensus Statement on Optimal Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Programming and Testing provided guidance on bradycardia programming, tachycardia detection, tachycardia therapy, and defibrillation testing for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patient treatment. The 32 recommendations represented the consensus opinion of the writing group, graded by Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence. In addition, Appendix B provided manufacturer-specific translations of these recommendations into clinical practice consistent with the recommendations within the parent document. In some instances, programming guided by quality evidence gained from studies performed in devices from some manufacturers was translated such that this programming was approximated in another manufacturer’s ICD programming settings. The authors found that the data, although not formally tested, were strong, consistent, and generalizable beyond the specific manufacturer and model of ICD. As expected, because these recommendations represented strategic choices to balance risks, there have been reports in which adverse outcomes were documented with ICDs programmed to Appendix B recommendations. The recommendations have been reviewed and updated to minimize such adverse events. Notably, patients who do not receive unnecessary ICD therapy are not aware of being spared potential harm, whereas patients in whom their ICD failed to treat life-threatening arrhythmias have their event recorded in detail. The revised recommendations employ the principle that the randomized trials and large registry data should guide programming more than anecdotal evidence. These recommendations should not replace the opinion of the treating physician who has considered the patient’s clinical status and desired outcome via a shared clinical decision-making process.