Benefit of dual-chamber pacing with Closed Loop Stimulation in tilt-induced cardio-inhibitory reflex syncope (BIOSync trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Michele Brignole, Marco Tomaino, Arnaud Aerts, Fabrizio Ammirati, Félix Alejandro Ayala-Paredes, Jean-Claude Deharo, Attilio Del Rosso, Mohamed H Hamdan, Maurizio Lunati, Angel Moya, Alessio Gargaro, BIOSync Study Steering Committee, Michele Brignole, Marco Tomaino, Arnaud Aerts, Fabrizio Ammirati, Félix Alejandro Ayala-Paredes, Jean-Claude Deharo, Attilio Del Rosso, Mohamed H Hamdan, Maurizio Lunati, Angel Moya, Alessio Gargaro, BIOSync Study Steering Committee

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of dual-chamber cardiac pacing in neuro-mediated reflex syncope with a cardio-inhibitory response to the Tilt-Table test (TT) has not been definitively assessed so far. The lack of reproducibility of results from previous studies may be partially explained by discrepancies in subject selection and some weaknesses in design and methods. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has set a class IIb indication to pacemaker implantation in this population recommending further research.

Methods/design: The BIOSync study is a multicenter, patient- and outcome-assessor-blind, randomized, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled trial with the objective of assessing the clinical benefit of cardiac pacing in patients with frequently recurrent reflex syncope, suspected (but not proven) to be triggered by asystolic pauses as showing a VASIS 2B response to the TT (>3-s pause regardless of blood pressure drop). The primary and secondary endpoints are time to first post-implantation recurrence of syncope or the combination of pre-syncope or syncope, respectively. One hundred and twenty-eight consenting patients will be 1:1 randomized to dual-chamber cardiac pacing 'on' or 'off' after pacemaker implantation, and followed up until the first adjudicated primary endpoint event for a maximum of 2 years. The so-called Closed Loop Stimulation function on top of dual-chamber pacing is the pacing mode selected in the study active arm. Participating patients are asked to self-report syncopal symptoms at least every 3 months with self-administered questionnaires addressed to an independent Adjudication Committee. Patients and members of the Adjudicating Committee are blinded to randomization. The study is designed to detect a 40% relative reduction in the 2-year incidence of syncopal recurrences with 80% statistical power.

Discussion: The BIOSync study is designed to definitively assess the benefit of pacing against placebo in reflex syncope patients with a cardio-inhibitory response to the TT. The study will also provide important information on the efficiency of the TT in appropriately selecting reflex syncope patients for cardiac pacing.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02324920 (27 October 2016, date last accessed).

Keywords: Cardiac pacing; Neuro-mediated reflex syncope; Tilt-Table test.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flowchart. ECG electrocardiogram, DDD-CLS dual-chamber pacing with Closed Loop Stimulation, IPG pacemaker, ODO pacing ‘off’, R randomization, TT Tilt-Table test
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments. *Patients will terminate their participation at the 24-month in-hospital follow-up or at the assessment of a primary endpoint event occurrence, whichever comes first. **Optional in-hospital visit. DDD-CLS dual-chamber pacing with Closed Loop Stimulation, ODO 'sensing only' mode, pacing ‘off’

References

    1. Authors/Task Force Members 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: The Task Force on Cardiac Pacing and Resynchronization Therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2281–2329. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht150.
    1. Ammirati F, Colivicchi F, Santini M. Permanent cardiac pacing versus medical treatment for the prevention of recurrent vasovagal syncope: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Circulation. 2001;104:52–57. doi: 10.1161/hc2601.091708.
    1. Sutton R, Brignole M, Menozzi C, Raviele A, Alboni P, Giani P, et al. Dual-chamber pacing in the treatment of neurally mediated tilt-positive cardio-inhibitory syncope: pacemaker versus no therapy: a multicenter randomized study. The Vasovagal Syncope International Study (VASIS) Investigators. Circulation. 2000;102:294–299. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.102.3.294.
    1. Connolly SJ, Sheldon R, Thorpe KE, Roberts RS, Ellenbogen KA, Wilkoff BL, et al. Pacemaker therapy for prevention of syncope in patients with recurrent severe vasovagal syncope: Second Vasovagal Pacemaker Study (VPS II): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2003;289:2224–2229. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.17.2224.
    1. Raviele A, Giada F, Menozzi C, Speca G, Orazi S, Gasparini G, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of permanent cardiac pacing for the treatment of recurrent tilt-induced vasovagal syncope. The vasovagal syncope and pacing trial (SYNPACE) Eur Heart J. 2004;25:1741–1748. doi: 10.1016/j.ehj.2004.06.031.
    1. Brignole M, Menozzi C, Moya A, Andresen D, Blanc JJ, Krahn AD, et al. International Study on Syncope of Uncertain Etiology 3 (ISSUE-3) Investigators. Pacemaker therapy in patients with neurally mediated syncope and documented asystole: Third International Study on Syncope of Uncertain Etiology (ISSUE-3): a randomized trial. Circulation. 2012;125(21):2566–2571. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.082313.
    1. Brignole M, Ammirati F, Arabia F, Quartieri F, Tomaino M, Ungar A, et al. Assessment of a standardized algorithm for cardiac pacing in older patients affected by severe unpredictable reflex syncopes. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(24):1529–1535. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv069.
    1. Brignole M, Arabia F, Ammirati F, Tomaino M, Quartieri F, Rafanelli M, et al. Standardized algorithm for cardiac pacing in older patients affected by severe unpredictable reflex syncope: 3-year insights from the Syncope Unit Project 2 (SUP 2) study. Europace. 2016;18:1427-33.
    1. Brignole M, Menozzi C, Del Rosso A, Costa S, Gaggioli G, Bottoni N, et al. New classification of haemodynamics of vasovagal syncope: beyond the VASIS classification. Analysis of the pre-syncopal phase of the tilt test without and with nitroglycerin challenge. Vasovagal Syncope International Study. Europace. 2000;2(1):66–76. doi: 10.1053/eupc.1999.0064.
    1. Varma N, Epstein AE, Irimpen A, Schweikert R, Love C. TRUST Investigators. Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) trial. Circulation. 2010;122(4):325–332. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.937409.
    1. Moya A, Sutton R, Ammirati F, Blanc JJ, Brignole M, Dahm JB, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009) Eur Heart J. 2009;30(21):2631–2671. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp298.
    1. Schaldach M, Hutten H. Intracardiac impedance to determine sympathetic activity in rate responsive pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1992;15(11 Pt 2):1778–1786. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1992.tb02968.x.
    1. Occhetta E, Bortnik M, Audoglio R, Vassanelli C, INVASY Study Investigators Closed loop stimulation in prevention of vasovagal syncope. Inotropy Controlled Pacing in Vasovagal Syncope (INVASY): a multicentre randomized, single blind, controlled study. Europace. 2004;6:538–547. doi: 10.1016/j.eupc.2004.08.009.
    1. Palmisano P, Zaccaria M, Luzzi G, Nacci F, Anaclerio M, Favale S. Closed-loop cardiac pacing vs. conventional dual-chamber pacing with specialized sensing and pacing algorithms for syncope prevention in patients with refractory vasovagal syncope: results of a long-term follow-up. Europace. 2012;14:1038–1043. doi: 10.1093/europace/eur419.
    1. Russo V, Rago A, Papa AA, Golino P, Calabrò R, Russo MG, et al. The effect of dual-chamber closed-loop stimulation on syncope recurrence in healthy patients with tilt-induced vasovagal cardioinhibitory syncope: a prospective, randomised, single-blind, crossover study. Heart. 2013;99(21):1609–1613. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-303878.
    1. Brignole M, Donateo P, Tomaino M, Massa R, Iori M, Beiras X, et al. Benefit of pacemaker therapy in patients with presumed neurally mediated syncope and documented asystole is greater when tilt test is negative: an analysis from the third International Study on Syncope of Uncertain Etiology (ISSUE-3) Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7(1):10–16. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.113.001103.
    1. Connolly SJ. Permanent pacemaker therapy for neurally mediated syncope. Circulation. 2012;125:2552–2553. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.109280.
    1. Sud S, Massel D, Klein GJ, Leong-Sit P, Yee R, Skanes AC, et al. The expectation effect and cardiac pacing for refractory vasovagal syncope. Am J Med. 2007;120:54–62. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.05.046.
    1. Wieling W, van Dijk N, de Lange FJ, Olde N, Thijs RD, van Dijk JG, et al. History taking as a diagnostic test in patients with syncope: developing expertise in syncope. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:277–280. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu478.
    1. Anker SD, Agewall S, Borggrefe M, Calvert M, Jaime Caro J, Cowie MR, et al. The importance of patient-reported outcomes: a call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(30):2001–2009. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu205.
    1. Califf RM. Large simple trials: really, it can’t be that simple! Eur Heart J. 2014;35(9):549–551. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht556.
    1. International Test Commission. ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests. ITC-G-TA-20140617. Version 1.0, 15 July 2005.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever