Rutgers Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Prime Health Care, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2023 Aug;34(8):1744-1749. doi: 10.1111/jce.15991. Epub 2023 Jul 2.
Pacing for vasovagal syncope is established. Two pacing algorithms are available. The rate-drop-response (RDR-Medtronic) is triggered by falling heart rate acting with modified rate-hysteresis. The closed loop stimulation or system (CLS-Biotronik) is triggered by impedance changes in the right ventricle reflecting falling volume and rising contractility. These are very different physiologically. Both algorithms carry favorable reports in clinical use.
A randomized-controlled superiority trial is proposed to compare the two algorithms for the control of vasovagal syncope in patients for whom pacing is indicated by current guidelines in North America and Europe. Available recent evidence may be seen as supporting superiority of CLS. No comparison between the two algorithms has been made. In this trial, patients will be centrally randomized to one or other algorithm on a 1:1 basis. Two-hundred-seventy-six patients in each group will be recruited. Sample size is determined using a confidence interval of 95%, a power of 90%, and a drop-out rate of 10% to detect an 11% difference between CLS and RDR. Recurrent symptom comparison will be made by an independent committee. The Co-primary endpoints will be recurrent syncope burden compared with that in 24-months preimplant, and occurrence of syncope in 24-months follow-up. Each outcome will be compared between the two algorithms. Secondary endpoints will be program and drug therapy changes over 24-months follow-up and quality of life by questionnaire at baseline,1 and 2 years.
These are anticipated to clarify the device algorithm choice and, therefore, to improve patient care.
已确立针对血管迷走性晕厥的起搏治疗。现存在两种起搏算法。基于心率下降的反应率下降(RDR-Medtronic)由心率下降触发,同时采用改良的反应率滞后。闭环刺激或系统(CLS-Biotronik)由反映心室容量下降和收缩力上升的右心室阻抗变化触发。这两种算法在生理学上有很大的不同。这两种算法在临床应用中都有良好的报告。
拟进行一项随机对照优效性试验,以比较两种算法在北美和欧洲现行指南表明起搏治疗指征的血管迷走性晕厥患者中的应用效果。现有的最新证据可能表明 CLS 具有优势。目前尚未对这两种算法进行比较。在该试验中,患者将按照 1:1 的比例,在中央随机分配至一种或另一种算法。每组将招募 276 名患者。使用置信区间为 95%、效能为 90%和 10%的脱落率来确定样本量,以检测 CLS 和 RDR 之间 11%的差异。将由独立委员会进行复发性症状比较。主要复合终点将是与植入前 24 个月相比,复发性晕厥负担的比较,以及 24 个月随访期间晕厥的发生。将对两种算法的每个结果进行比较。次要终点将是 24 个月随访期间的程控和药物治疗变化,以及基线、1 年和 2 年的生活质量问卷调查。
这些结果有望阐明设备算法选择,从而改善患者的治疗效果。