Dual-Chamber Pacing With Closed Loop Stimulation in Recurrent Reflex Vasovagal Syncope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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).
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".