-
Global Epidemiology Jun 2024Today, vasovagal syncope is a common problem that has become a significant health and social challenge. The present study investigated the global prevalence of vasovagal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Today, vasovagal syncope is a common problem that has become a significant health and social challenge. The present study investigated the global prevalence of vasovagal syncope using a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis study, the global prevalence of vasovagal syncope using the keywords Prevalence, Epidemiology, Vasovagal syncope, and Reflex syncope in PubMed, WoS, Scopus, ScienceDirect databases, and Google scholar search engine without time limit until July 20, 2022, was extracted and transferred to the information management software (EndNote). Then the repeated studies were excluded, and researchers evaluated the remaining studies during three stages (i.e., screening, eligibility, and qualitative assessment). The heterogeneity of studies was investigated using the I index, and the analysis of eligible studies was performed using the random effects model.
RESULTS
In the review of 12 studies with a sample size of 36,156 people, the global prevalence of vasovagal syncope was reported as 16.4 (95%CI: 6-37.5), and the study of publication bias in the studies through the Egger test shows the absence of publication bias in the studies.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence reported in the studies shows a high prevalence of vasovagal syncope, which requires serious intervention and preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic measures. It is necessary for health policymakers to take effective measures in this field.
PubMed: 38283939
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloepi.2024.100136 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2023The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of the ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided techniques in the management of back pain. Using PubMed, Scopus, and... (Review)
Review
The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of the ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided techniques in the management of back pain. Using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, we searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before May 2023, which reported relevant data on the topic. The effectiveness of the ultrasound-guided (US-guided) and fluoroscopy-guided (FL-guided) approaches for back pain management was compared in terms of postoperative pain intensity, postoperative functional outcomes, and postoperative complications. Subgroup analyses were conducted for different postoperative periods. Eight studies were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in post-procedural pain relief at one week, two weeks, one month, two months, and three months between the US-guided and FL-guided interventions for back pain management (SMD with 95% CI is -0.01 [-0.11, 0.10]), = 0.91, I = 0%). In terms of the postoperative functional outcomes assessed by the "Oswestry Disability Index" (ODI) functionality score, the model tends to favor the FL-guided injections over the US-guided injections (SMD with 95% CI: 0.13 [-0.00, 0.25], = 0.05, I = 0). Finally, the US-guided and FL-guided injections did not show significantly different results in terms of postoperative complications (RR with 95% CI is 0.99 [0.49, 1.99], = 0.97, I = 0). The subgroup analysis also did not demonstrate differences between the US-guided and FL-guided techniques in the following outcomes: vasovagal reaction, transient headache, and facial flushing. There was no significant difference between the US-guided and FL-guided injections for treating back pain in terms of postoperative pain intensity and complications. Still, the model tends to favor the FL-guided injections over the US-guided injections in terms of functionality.
PubMed: 37998610
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13223474 -
Open Heart Jun 2024Neurocardiogenic syncope is a common condition with significant associated psychological and physical morbidity. The effectiveness of therapeutic options for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neurocardiogenic syncope is a common condition with significant associated psychological and physical morbidity. The effectiveness of therapeutic options for neurocardiogenic syncope beyond placebo remains uncertain.
METHODS
The primary endpoint was the risk ratio (RR) of spontaneously recurring syncope following any therapeutic intervention. We also examined the effect of blinding on treatment efficacy. We identified all randomised trials which evaluated the effect of any pharmacological, device-based or supportive intervention on patients with a history of syncope. A systematic search was conducted on Medline, Embase, PubMed databases and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials from 1950 to 25 April 2023. Event rates, their RRs and 95% CIs were calculated, and a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for each intervention. Data analysis was performed in R using RStudio.
RESULTS
We identified 47 eligible trials randomising 3518 patients. Blinded trials assessing syncope recurrence were neutral for beta blockers, fludrocortisone and conventional dual-chamber pacing but were favourable for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.63, p<0.001), midodrine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94, p=0.016) and closed-loop stimulation (CLS) pacing (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35, p<0.001). Unblinded trials reported significant benefits for all therapy categories other than beta blockers and consistently showed larger benefits than blinded trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Under blinded conditions, SSRIs, midodrine and CLS pacing significantly reduced syncope recurrence. Future trials for syncope should be blinded to avoid overestimating treatment effects.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022330148.
Topics: Humans; Syncope, Vasovagal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Recurrence
PubMed: 38890128
DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2024-002669