-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation often recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been...
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation often recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence. This is an update of a review previously published in 2006, 2012 and 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs on death, stroke, drug adverse effects and recurrence of atrial fibrillation in people who had recovered sinus rhythm after having atrial fibrillation.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase in January 2019, and ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP in February 2019. We checked the reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two authors independently selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antiarrhythmic drug with a control (no treatment, placebo, drugs for rate control) or with another antiarrhythmic drug in adults who had atrial fibrillation and in whom sinus rhythm was restored, spontaneously or by any intervention. We excluded postoperative atrial fibrillation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We pooled studies, if appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All results were calculated at one year of follow-up or the nearest time point.
MAIN RESULTS
This update included one new study (100 participants) and excluded one previously included study because of double publication. Finally, we included 59 RCTs comprising 20,981 participants studying quinidine, disopyramide, propafenone, flecainide, metoprolol, amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone and sotalol. Overall, mean follow-up was 10.2 months.All-cause mortalityHigh-certainty evidence from five RCTs indicated that treatment with sotalol was associated with a higher all-cause mortality rate compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.81; participants = 1882). The number need to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for sotalol was 102 participants treated for one year to have one additional death. Low-certainty evidence from six RCTs suggested that risk of mortality may be higher in people taking quinidine (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 4.77; participants = 1646). Moderate-certainty evidence showed increased RR for mortality but with very wide CIs for metoprolol (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.37 to 11.05, 2 RCTs, participants = 562) and amiodarone (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.99, 2 RCTs, participants = 444), compared with placebo.We found little or no difference in mortality with dofetilide (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence) or dronedarone (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence) compared to placebo/no treatment. There were few data on mortality for disopyramide, flecainide and propafenone, making impossible a reliable estimation for those drugs.Withdrawals due to adverse eventsAll analysed drugs increased withdrawals due to adverse effects compared to placebo or no treatment (quinidine: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.78; disopyramide: RR 3.68, 95% CI 0.95 to 14.24; propafenone: RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.46; flecainide: RR 15.41, 95% CI 0.91 to 260.19; metoprolol: RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.48 to 8.15; amiodarone: RR 6.70, 95% CI 1.91 to 23.45; dofetilide: RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.18; dronedarone: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.85; sotalol: RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.11). Certainty of the evidence for this outcome was low for disopyramide, amiodarone, dofetilide and flecainide; moderate to high for the remaining drugs.ProarrhythmiaVirtually all studied antiarrhythmics showed increased proarrhythmic effects (counting both tachyarrhythmias and bradyarrhythmias attributable to treatment) (quinidine: RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 4.41; disopyramide: no data; flecainide: RR 4.80, 95% CI 1.30 to 17.77; metoprolol: RR 18.14, 95% CI 2.42 to 135.66; amiodarone: RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.71 to 6.96; dofetilide: RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.33 to 22.76; dronedarone: RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.98; sotalol: RR 3.55, 95% CI 2.16 to 5.83); with the exception of propafenone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.47) for which the certainty of evidence was very low and we were uncertain about the effect. Certainty of the evidence for this outcome for the other drugs was moderate to high.StrokeEleven studies reported stroke outcomes with quinidine, disopyramide, flecainide, amiodarone, dronedarone and sotalol. High-certainty evidence from two RCTs suggested that dronedarone may be associated with reduced risk of stroke (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; participants = 5872). This result is attributed to one study dominating the meta-analysis and has yet to be reproduced in other studies. There was no apparent effect on stroke rates with the other antiarrhythmics.Recurrence of atrial fibrillationModerate- to high-certainty evidence, with the exception of disopyramide which was low-certainty evidence, showed that all analysed drugs, including metoprolol, reduced recurrence of atrial fibrillation (quinidine: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88; disopyramide: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.01; propafenone: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.74; flecainide: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.77; metoprolol: RR 0.83 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; amiodarone: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.58; dofetilide: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; dronedarone: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91; sotalol: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.87). Despite this reduction, atrial fibrillation still recurred in 43% to 67% of people treated with antiarrhythmics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence of increased mortality associated with sotalol treatment, and low-certainty evidence suggesting increased mortality with quinidine, when used for maintaining sinus rhythm in people with atrial fibrillation. We found few data on mortality in people taking disopyramide, flecainide and propafenone, so it was not possible to make a reliable estimation of the mortality risk for these drugs. However, we did find moderate-certainty evidence of marked increases in proarrhythmia and adverse effects with flecainide.Overall, there is evidence showing that antiarrhythmic drugs increase adverse events, increase proarrhythmic events and some antiarrhythmics may increase mortality. Conversely, although they reduce recurrences of atrial fibrillation, there is no evidence of any benefit on other clinical outcomes, compared with placebo or no treatment.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 31483500
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005049.pub5 -
European Heart Journal Jan 2018Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF ≥ 50%. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF ≥ 50%. We investigated the effect of beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Individual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21-33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40-49% and 244 ≥ 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF ≥ 50%. For LVEF 40-49%, death occurred in 21/292 [7.2%] randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 [12.4%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.03]. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 [4.5%] with beta-blockers and 26/283 [9.2%] with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF ≥50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when < 50% at baseline, but did not improve prognosis.
CONCLUSION
Beta-blockers improve LVEF and prognosis for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with a reduced LVEF. The data are most robust for LVEF < 40%, but similar benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with LVEF 40-49%.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Aged; Atrial Fibrillation; Double-Blind Method; Female; Heart Failure; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 29040525
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx564 -
Journal of Cardiology Nov 2021The aim of this meta-analysis is to investigate the effectiveness of intravenous magnesium (IV Mg) in rate and rhythm control of rapid atrial fibrillation (AF) when... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this meta-analysis is to investigate the effectiveness of intravenous magnesium (IV Mg) in rate and rhythm control of rapid atrial fibrillation (AF) when administered in addition to standard-of-care for non-post-operative patients. Previous meta-analyses on this topic have demonstrated the efficacy of IV Mg in achieving rate control, but not rhythm control.
METHODS
Six randomized controlled trials comparing IV Mg to placebo in the treatment of rapid AF were obtained from electronic databases totaling 745 patients. Outcomes were analyzed using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model and expressed as odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Our pooled analysis showed that IV Mg given in addition to standard-of-care was superior in achieving rate control (63% vs 40%; OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.80-3.45) and rhythm conversion to sinus (21% vs. 14%, OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.84) compared to standard-of-care alone. Flushing was more frequently observed in patients receiving IV Mg compared to placebo (9% vs. 0.4%, OR 19.79, 95% CI 4.30-91.21). Subgroup analysis showed the superiority of a lower dose of IV Mg, which we designated as 5 g or lower (24% vs 13%, OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.22-3.61) compared to the higher dose (>5 g) (16% vs 13%, OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.65-2.32) in rhythm control when compared to placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
IV Mg administered in conjunction with standard-of-care is effective for rate control and modestly effective for restoration of sinus rhythm in rapid AF without clinically significant adverse effects.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Humans; Magnesium; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34162502
DOI: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2021.06.001 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Feb 2023The objective was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological management options for atrial fibrillation/atrial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological management options for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter with rapid ventricular response (AFRVR) in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in the acute care setting.
METHODS
This study was a systematic review of observational studies or randomized clinical trials (RCT) of adult patients with AFRVR and concomitant ADHF in the emergency department (ED), intensive care unit, or step-down unit. The primary effectiveness outcome was successful rate or rhythm control. Safety outcomes were adverse events, such as symptomatic hypotension and venous thromboembolism.
RESULTS
A total of 6577 unique articles were identified. Five studies met inclusion criteria: one RCT in the inpatient setting and four retrospective studies, two in the ED and the other three in the inpatient setting. In the RCT of diltiazem versus placebo, 22 patients (100%) in the treatment group had a therapeutic response compared to 0/15 (0%) in the placebo group, with no significant safety differences between the two groups. For three of the observational studies, data were limited. One observation study showed no difference between metoprolol and diltiazem for successful rate control, but worsening heart failure symptoms occurred more frequently in those receiving diltiazem compared to metoprolol (19 patients [33%] vs. 10 patients [15%], p = 0.019). A single study included electrical cardioversion (one patient exposed with failure to convert to sinus rhythm) as nonpharmacological management. The overall risk of bias for included studies ranged from serious to critical. Missing data and heterogeneity of definitions for effectiveness and safety outcomes precluded the combination of results for quantitative meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
High-level evidence to inform clinical decision making regarding effective and safe management of AFRVR in patients with ADHF in the acute care setting is lacking.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Diltiazem; Metoprolol; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Heart Failure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36326565
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14618 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2014Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of recent onset. Various definitions of acute atrial fibrillation have been used in the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of recent onset. Various definitions of acute atrial fibrillation have been used in the literature, but for the purposes of this review we have included studies where atrial fibrillation may have occurred up to 7 days previously. Risk factors for acute atrial fibrillation include increasing age, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, diabetes, and lung disease. Acute atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke and heart failure. The condition resolves spontaneously within 24 to 48 hours in more than 50% of people; however, many people will require interventions to control heart rate or restore sinus rhythm.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent embolism, for conversion to sinus rhythm, and to control heart rate in people with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (within 7 days) who are haemodynamically stable? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 26 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: amiodarone, antithrombotic treatment before cardioversion, atenolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, digoxin, diltiazem, direct current cardioversion, flecainide, metoprolol, nebivolol, propafenone, sotalol, timolol, and verapamil.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Humans; Safety
PubMed: 25430048
DOI: No ID Found -
PloS One 2013Heart failure (HF) patients show high morbidity and mortality rate with increased risk of malignant arrhythmia and thromboembolism. Anticoagulation reduces embolic event... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heart failure (HF) patients show high morbidity and mortality rate with increased risk of malignant arrhythmia and thromboembolism. Anticoagulation reduces embolic event and death rates in HF patients with atrial fibrillation, but if antithrombotic therapy is beneficial in patients with HF in sinus rhythm is still debated.
METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
We conducted a systematic review of prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulant therapies (OATs) compared to antiplatelet treatment in HF patients in sinus rhythm. MEDLINE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and Scopus databases were searched up to May 2012. Four RCTs were identified and a total of 3663 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Patients with both ischemic and non-ischemic HF were included. There was no significant difference in mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.19) between OATs group and antiplatelet drug group. OATs have reduced ischemic stroke risk (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.74), but have increased major bleeding risk (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.88) compared to antiplatelet treatment.
CONCLUSION
In HF patients in sinus rhythm OATs do not show a better risk-benefit profile compared to antiplatelet treatment in cardioembolism prevention. Warfarin and aspirin seem to be similar in reducing mortality. Warfarin reduces the incidence of ischemic stroke, but increases major bleedings. Thus, it is possible to speculate that aspirin prescription be indicated in patients with high risk of bleeding, whereas warfarin could be preferred in patients with high thromboembolic risk.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Aspirin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Heart Failure; Humans; Odds Ratio; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Thromboembolism; Warfarin
PubMed: 23301006
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052952 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2011Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of less than 48 hours' duration. Risk factors for acute atrial fibrillation include increasing... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of less than 48 hours' duration. Risk factors for acute atrial fibrillation include increasing age, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, diabetes, and lung disease. Acute atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke and heart failure. The condition resolves spontaneously within 24 to 48 hours in over 50% of people; however, many people will require interventions to control heart rate or restore sinus rhythm.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent embolism, for conversion to sinus rhythm, and to control heart rate in people with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (within 7 days) who are haemodynamically stable? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 30 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: amiodarone, antithrombotic treatment before cardioversion, digoxin, diltiazem, direct current cardioversion, flecainide, propafenone, quinidine, sotalol, timolol, and verapamil.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Humans; Propafenone; Sotalol
PubMed: 21718559
DOI: No ID Found -
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Sep 2019Heart failure is a prothrombotic state, and it has been hypothesised that thrombosis and embolism cause non-fatal and fatal events in heart failure and reduced ejection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Heart failure is a prothrombotic state, and it has been hypothesised that thrombosis and embolism cause non-fatal and fatal events in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We sought to determine the effect of anticoagulant therapy on clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF who are in sinus rhythm.
METHODS
We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of anticoagulation therapy in patients with HFrEF in sinus rhythm. Our analysis compared patients randomised to anticoagulant therapy with those randomised to antiplatelet therapy, placebo or control, and examined the endpoints of all-cause mortality, (re)hospitalisation for worsening heart failure, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke of any aetiology and major haemorrhage.
RESULTS
Five trials were identified that met the prespecified search criteria. Compared with control therapy, anticoagulant treatment did not reduce all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08), (re)hospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13) or non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.13). Anticoagulation did reduce the rate of non-fatal stroke (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.81, p=0.001), but this was offset by an increase in the incidence of major haemorrhage (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.38, p=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis provides evidence to oppose the hypothesis that thrombosis or embolism plays an important role in the morbidity and mortality associated with HFrEF, with the exception of stroke-related morbidity.
Topics: Aged; Anticoagulants; Disease Progression; Female; Heart Failure; Heart Rate; Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Stroke; Stroke Volume; Thrombosis; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 30962190
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314381 -
Cureus Aug 2022Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Since... (Review)
Review
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Since then, the disease has spread globally, leading to the ongoing pandemic. It can cause severe respiratory illness; however, many cases of pericarditis have also been reported. This systematic review aims to recognize the clinical features of pericarditis and myopericarditis in COVID-19 patients. Google Scholar, Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting "Coronavirus" or "COVID" and "Peri-myocarditis," "heart," or "retrospective." Case reports and retrospective studies published from May 2020 to February 2021 were reviewed. In total, 33 studies on pericarditis, myopericarditis, and pericardial infusion were included in this review. COVID-19 pericarditis affected adult patients at any age. The incidence is more common in males, with a male-to-female ratio of 2:1. Chest pain (60%), fever (51%), and shortness of breath (51%) were the most reported symptoms, followed by cough (39%), fatigue (15%), myalgia (12%), and diarrhea (12%). Laboratory tests revealed leukocytosis with neutrophil predominance, elevated D-dimer, erythrocyte rate, and C-reactive protein. Cardiac markers including troponin-1, troponin-T, and brain natriuretic peptide were elevated in most cases. Radiographic imaging of the chest were mostly normal, and only 31% of chest X-rays showed cardiomegaly and or bilateral infiltration. Electrocardiography (ECG) demonstrated normal sinus rhythm with around 59% ST elevation and rarely PR depression or T wave inversion, while the predominant echocardiographic feature was pericardial effusion. Management with colchicine was favored in most cases, followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and interventional therapy was only needed when patient developed cardiac tamponade. The majority of the reviewed studies reported either recovery or no continued clinical deterioration. The prevalence of COVID-19-related cardiac diseases is high, and pericarditis is a known extrapulmonary manifestation. However, pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade are less prevalent and may require urgent intervention to prevent mortality. Pericarditis should be considered in patients with chest pain, ST elevation on ECG, a normal coronary angiogram, and COVID-19. We emphasize the importance of clinical examination, ECG, and echocardiogram for decision-making, and NSAIDs, colchicine, and corticosteroids are considered to be safe in the treatment of pericarditis/myopericarditis associated with COVID-19.
PubMed: 36120210
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27948 -
Journal of the American College of... Aug 2017To determine, using systematic review of the biomedical literature, whether pacing reduces risk of recurrent syncope and relevant clinical outcomes among adult patients... (Review)
Review
Pacing as a Treatment for Reflex-Mediated (Vasovagal, Situational, or Carotid Sinus Hypersensitivity) Syncope: A Systematic Review for the 2017 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Syncope: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association...
OBJECTIVES
To determine, using systematic review of the biomedical literature, whether pacing reduces risk of recurrent syncope and relevant clinical outcomes among adult patients with reflex-mediated syncope.
METHODS
MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through October 7, 2015) were searched for randomized trials and observational studies examining pacing and syncope, and the bibliographies of known systematic reviews were also examined. Studies were rejected for poor-quality study methods and for the lack of the population, intervention, comparator, or outcome(s) of interest.
RESULTS
Of 3,188 citations reviewed, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review, including a total of 676 patients. These included 9 randomized trials and 1 observational study. Of the 10 studies, 4 addressed patients with carotid sinus hypersensitivity, and the remaining 6 addressed vasovagal syncope. Among the 6 open-label (unblinded) studies, we found that pacing was associated with a 70% reduction in recurrent syncope (relative risk [RR]: 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.60). When the 2 analyzable studies with double-blinded methodology were considered separately, there was no clear benefit (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.25-2.1), but confidence intervals were wide. The strongest evidence was from the randomized, double-blinded ISSUE-3 (Third International Study on Syncope of Uncertain Etiology) trial, which demonstrated a benefit of pacing among patients with recurrent syncope and asystole documented by implantable loop recorder.
CONCLUSIONS
There are limited data with substantive evidence of outcome ascertainment bias, and only 2 studies with a double-blinded study design have been conducted. The evidence does not support the use of pacing for reflex-mediated syncope beyond patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope and asystole documented by implantable loop recorder.
Topics: Advisory Committees; American Heart Association; Biomedical Research; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial; Cardiology; Disease Management; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Societies, Medical; Syncope; United States
PubMed: 28286220
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.004