Impact of dual-chamber pacing with closed loop stimulation on quality of life in patients with recurrent reflex vasovagal syncope: results of the SPAIN study.

AIMS: Reflex vasovagal syncope (VVS) is the most common cause of syncope and patients with recurrent episodes may severely impair quality of life (QoL). This pre-specified analysis evaluated whether the clinically significant reduction in syncope burden demonstrated by dual-chamber pacing with closed loop stimulation (DDD-CLS) reported in the SPAIN trial translates into improved QoL. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients aged ≥40 years with ≥5 VVS episodes and cardioinhibitory response induced by head-up tilt testing were included. Patients were randomized 1:1 to active DDD-CLS pacing algorithm for 12 months followed by sham DDI mode for the remaining 12 months (Group A) or vice versa (Group B). QoL was assessed using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey, Physical Component Score (PCS), and Mental Component Score (MCS) before randomization (baseline) and at 12- and 24-month follow-up. Fifty-four patients were enrolled from 11 participating centres. No significant carryover effect was detected for any variable, and the only period effect was observed in the vitality subdomain (P = 0.033). Mean SF-36 scores were higher in the DDD-CLS group vs. the DDI group for the eight subdomains and significantly different in physical role, bodily pain, and vitality (P < 0.05). The analysis of component summary scores indicated that DDD-CLS benefited both mental and physical components with significant differences in PCS when compared with the DDI group. CONCLUSION: Dual-chamber pacing with closed loop stimulation determined a significant and clinically relevant improvement in QoL across both mental and physical components in patients with recurrent VVS. REGISTRATION: Closed Loop Stimulation for Neuromediated Syncope (SPAIN Study); NCT01621464.

Dual-Chamber Pacing With Closed Loop Stimulation in Recurrent Reflex Vasovagal Syncope: The SPAIN Study.

BACKGROUND: Pacing in vasovagal syncope remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated dual-chamber pacing with closed loop stimulation (DDD-CLS) in patients with cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, controlled study included Canadian and Spanish patients age ≥40 years, with high burden syncope (≥5 episodes, ≥2 episodes in the past year), and a cardioinhibitory head-up tilt test (bradycardia <40 beats/min for 10 s or asystole >3 s). Patients were randomized to either DDD-CLS pacing for 12 months followed by sham DDI mode pacing at 30 pulses/min for 12 months (group A), or sham DDI mode for 12 months followed by DDD-CLS pacing for 12 months (group B). Patients in both arms crossed-over after 12 months of follow-up or when a maximum of 3 syncopal episodes occurred within 1 month. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients completed the protocol; 22 were men (47.8%), and mean age was 56.30 ± 10.63 years. The mean number of previous syncopal episodes was 12 (range 9 to 20). The proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in the number of syncopal episodes was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47% to 90%) with DDD-CLS compared with 28% (95% CI: 9.7% to 53.5%) with sham DDI mode (p = 0.017). A total of 4 patients (8.7%) had events during DDD-CLS and 21 (45.7%) during sham DDI (hazard ratio: 6.7; 95% CI: 2.3 to 19.8). Kaplan-Meier curve was significantly different between groups in time to first syncope: 29.2 months (95% CI: 15.3 to 29.2 months) versus 9.3 months (95% CI: 6.21 months, NA; p < 0.016); odds ratio: 0.11 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.37; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DDD-CLS pacing significantly reduced syncope burden and time to first recurrence by 7-fold, prolonging time to first syncope recurrence in patients age ≥40 years with head-up tilt test-induced vasovagal syncope compared with sham pacing. (Closed Loop Stimulation for Neuromediated Syncope [SPAIN Study]; NCT01621464).

EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring.

AIM: Remote follow-up (FU) of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) allows for fewer in-office visits in combination with earlier detection of relevant findings. Its implementation requires investment and reorganization of care. Providers (physicians or hospitals) are unsure about the financial impact. The primary end-point of this randomized prospective multicentre health economic trial was the total FU-related cost for providers, comparing Home Monitoring facilitated FU (HM ON) to regular in-office FU (HM OFF) during the first 2 years after ICD implantation. Also the net financial impact on providers (taking national reimbursement into account) and costs from a healthcare payer perspective were evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 312 patients with VVI- or DDD-ICD implants from 17 centres in six EU countries were randomised to HM ON or OFF, of which 303 were eligible for data analysis. For all contacts (in-office, calendar- or alert-triggered web-based review, discussions, calls) time-expenditure was tracked. Country-specific cost parameters were used to convert resource use into monetary values. Remote FU equipment itself was not included in the cost calculations. Given only two patients from Finland (one in each group) a monetary valuation analysis was not performed for Finland. Average age was 62.4 ± 13.1 years, 81% were male, 39% received a DDD system, and 51% had a prophylactic ICD. Resource use with HM ON was clearly different: less FU visits (3.79 ± 1.67 vs. 5.53 ± 2.32; P < 0.001) despite a small increase of unscheduled visits (0.95 ± 1.50 vs. 0.62 ± 1.25; P < 0.005), more non-office-based contacts (1.95 ± 3.29 vs. 1.01 ± 2.64; P < 0.001), more Internet sessions (11.02 ± 15.28 vs. 0.06 ± 0.31; P < 0.001) and more in-clinic discussions (1.84 ± 4.20 vs. 1.28 ± 2.92; P < 0.03), but with numerically fewer hospitalizations (0.67 ± 1.18 vs. 0.85 ± 1.43, P = 0.23) and shorter length-of-stay (6.31 ± 15.5 vs. 8.26 ± 18.6; P = 0.27), although not significant. For the whole study population, the total FU cost for providers was not different for HM ON vs. OFF [mean (95% CI): €204 (169-238) vs. €213 (182-243); range for difference (€-36 to 54), NS]. From a payer perspective, FU-related costs were similar while the total cost per patient (including other physician visits, examinations, and hospitalizations) was numerically (but not significantly) lower. There was no difference in the net financial impact on providers [profit of €408 (327-489) vs. €400 (345-455); range for difference (€-104 to 88), NS], but there was heterogeneity among countries, with less profit for providers in the absence of specific remote FU reimbursement (Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands) and maintained or increased profit in cases where such reimbursement exists (Germany and UK). Quality of life (SF-36) was not different. CONCLUSION: For all the patients as a whole, FU-related costs for providers are not different for remote FU vs. purely in-office FU, despite reorganized care. However, disparity in the impact on provider budget among different countries illustrates the need for proper reimbursement to ensure effective remote FU implementation.

Descarga inapropiada de desfibrilador en un dispositivo subcutáneo secundaria a contracciones musculares repetitivas / Inappropriate Defibrillator Shock in a Subcutaneous Device Secondary to Repetitive Muscle Contractions

No disponible

Torsade de pointes por QT largo y silla turca vacía / Torsade de pointes with a long-QT interval and an empty sella turcica

No disponible

No disponible