第二次血管迷走神经性起搏器研究(VPS II)后血管迷走神经性晕厥的起搏:判断问题。

Geoffrey M Trim, Andrew D Krahn, George J Klein, Allan C Skanes, Raymond Yee
{"title":"第二次血管迷走神经性起搏器研究(VPS II)后血管迷走神经性晕厥的起搏:判断问题。","authors":"Geoffrey M Trim,&nbsp;Andrew D Krahn,&nbsp;George J Klein,&nbsp;Allan C Skanes,&nbsp;Raymond Yee","doi":"10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023168.26698.1e","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Vasovagal or neurocardiogenic syncope is a common benign condition. In the majority of patients it regresses naturally, or can be controlled by conservative therapy. However there is a group of patients who remain severely affected despite lifestyle measures, counselling and medication. Pacing has been considered in these patients as a result of logic, observational studies, and three randomised but unblinded studies, VPS, VASIS and SYDIT. A randomised and blinded study, VPS II, was recently published, the results of which undermined the results of these preceding studies: despite a 30% trend towards reduced syncope in patients with active pacing, the result was not statistically significant. This left clinicians with a dilemma, whether or not to pace in patients with disabling syncope despite conservative therapy. We believe, based on a review of all currently available evidence, that there remains a role for pacing in the patient with evidence of significant cardioinhibition, particularly severe bradycardia or asystole, and ongoing disabling syncope in spite of conservative measures. When to pace in these patients is a matter of clinical judgement. The threshold for pacing should remain high, however, with extensive attempts of conservative and pharmacological measures and with appropriate discussions with patients prior to instituting pacing, regarding the risks and long-term implications of a pacemaker. More needs to be learned about optimal pacing modalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":80888,"journal":{"name":"Cardiac electrophysiology review","volume":"7 4","pages":"416-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023168.26698.1e","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pacing for vasovagal syncope after the second Vasovagal Pacemaker Study (VPS II): a matter of judgement.\",\"authors\":\"Geoffrey M Trim,&nbsp;Andrew D Krahn,&nbsp;George J Klein,&nbsp;Allan C Skanes,&nbsp;Raymond Yee\",\"doi\":\"10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023168.26698.1e\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Vasovagal or neurocardiogenic syncope is a common benign condition. In the majority of patients it regresses naturally, or can be controlled by conservative therapy. However there is a group of patients who remain severely affected despite lifestyle measures, counselling and medication. Pacing has been considered in these patients as a result of logic, observational studies, and three randomised but unblinded studies, VPS, VASIS and SYDIT. A randomised and blinded study, VPS II, was recently published, the results of which undermined the results of these preceding studies: despite a 30% trend towards reduced syncope in patients with active pacing, the result was not statistically significant. This left clinicians with a dilemma, whether or not to pace in patients with disabling syncope despite conservative therapy. We believe, based on a review of all currently available evidence, that there remains a role for pacing in the patient with evidence of significant cardioinhibition, particularly severe bradycardia or asystole, and ongoing disabling syncope in spite of conservative measures. When to pace in these patients is a matter of clinical judgement. The threshold for pacing should remain high, however, with extensive attempts of conservative and pharmacological measures and with appropriate discussions with patients prior to instituting pacing, regarding the risks and long-term implications of a pacemaker. More needs to be learned about optimal pacing modalities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiac electrophysiology review\",\"volume\":\"7 4\",\"pages\":\"416-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023168.26698.1e\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiac electrophysiology review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023168.26698.1e\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiac electrophysiology review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023168.26698.1e","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

血管迷走神经性或神经心源性晕厥是一种常见的良性疾病。在大多数患者中,它会自然消退,或者可以通过保守治疗来控制。然而,尽管采取了生活方式措施、咨询和药物治疗,仍有一群患者受到严重影响。根据逻辑研究、观察性研究和三个随机但非盲法研究(VPS、VASIS和SYDIT),在这些患者中考虑了起搏。最近发表了一项随机盲法研究VPS II,其结果破坏了之前的研究结果:尽管主动起搏患者晕厥发生率降低了30%,但结果没有统计学意义。这给临床医生留下了一个两难的选择,即是否在保守治疗的情况下对致残性晕厥患者进行治疗。我们认为,基于对所有现有证据的回顾,起搏在有明显心脏抑制证据的患者中仍然有作用,特别是严重的心动过缓或心搏停止,尽管采取了保守措施,但仍存在致残性晕厥。什么时候给这些病人起搏是一个临床判断问题。然而,起搏器的起搏阈值应该仍然很高,需要广泛尝试保守和药物措施,并在起搏前与患者进行适当的讨论,考虑起搏器的风险和长期影响。关于最佳起搏方式,我们需要了解更多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pacing for vasovagal syncope after the second Vasovagal Pacemaker Study (VPS II): a matter of judgement.

Vasovagal or neurocardiogenic syncope is a common benign condition. In the majority of patients it regresses naturally, or can be controlled by conservative therapy. However there is a group of patients who remain severely affected despite lifestyle measures, counselling and medication. Pacing has been considered in these patients as a result of logic, observational studies, and three randomised but unblinded studies, VPS, VASIS and SYDIT. A randomised and blinded study, VPS II, was recently published, the results of which undermined the results of these preceding studies: despite a 30% trend towards reduced syncope in patients with active pacing, the result was not statistically significant. This left clinicians with a dilemma, whether or not to pace in patients with disabling syncope despite conservative therapy. We believe, based on a review of all currently available evidence, that there remains a role for pacing in the patient with evidence of significant cardioinhibition, particularly severe bradycardia or asystole, and ongoing disabling syncope in spite of conservative measures. When to pace in these patients is a matter of clinical judgement. The threshold for pacing should remain high, however, with extensive attempts of conservative and pharmacological measures and with appropriate discussions with patients prior to instituting pacing, regarding the risks and long-term implications of a pacemaker. More needs to be learned about optimal pacing modalities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信