Pacemaker Therapy for Prevention of Syncope in Patients With Recurrent Severe Vasovagal Syncope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Three previous small randomized trials have reported that pacemaker therapy is beneficial for patients with severe recurrent vasovagal syncope. However, because these trials were not double blind, they may have been biased in their assessment of outcomes and had a placebo effect of surgery. OBJECTIVE: To determine if pacing therapy reduces the risk of syncope in patients with vasovagal syncope. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A randomized double-blind trial of pacemaker therapy in outpatients referred to syncope specialists at 15 centers from September 1998 to April 2002. In the year prior to randomization, patients had had a median of 4 episodes of syncope. Patients were followed up for up to 6 months. INTERVENTION: After implantation of a dual chamber pacemaker, 100 patients were randomly assigned to receive dual-chamber pacing (DDD) with rate drop response or to have only sensing without pacing (ODO). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Time to first recurrence of syncope. RESULTS: No patients were lost to follow-up. Of the 52 patients randomized to ODO, 22 (42%) had recurrent syncope within 6 months compared with 16 (33%) of 48 patients in the DDD group. The cumulative risk of syncope at 6 months was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25%-52%) for the ODO group and 31% (95% CI, 17%-43%) for the DDD group. The relative risk reduction in time to syncope with DDD pacing was 30% (95% CI, -33% to 63%; 1-sided P =.14). Lead dislodgement or repositioning occurred in 7 patients. One patient had vein thrombosis, another had pericardial tamponade leading to removal of the pacemaker system, and a third had infection involving the pacemaker generator. CONCLUSIONS: In this double-blind randomized trial, pacing therapy did not reduce the risk of recurrent syncope in patients with vasovagal syncope. Because of the weak evidence of efficacy of pacemaker therapy and the risk of complications, pacemaker therapy should not be recommended as first-line therapy for patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".