Closed‐looped stimulation cardiac pacing for recurrent vasovagal syncope: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

BACKGROUND: Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is defined by transient loss of consciousness with spontaneous rapid recovery. Recently, a closed‐loop stimulation pacing system (CLS) has shown superior effectiveness to conventional pacing in refractory VVS. However, systematic review and meta‐analysis has not been performed. We assessed the impact of CLS implantation and reduction in recurrent VVS events by a systematic review and a meta‐analysis. METHODS: We comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to September 2017. Included studies were published prospective or retrospective cohort, randomized controlled trial, and case–control studies that compared VVS events between recurrent, severe, or refractory cardioinhibitory VVS patient implanted with CLS and conventional pacing. Data from each study were combined using the random‐effects, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Six studies from November 2004 to October 2017 were included in this meta‐analysis involving 224 recurrent, severe, or refractory cardioinhibitory VVS patients implanted with CLS and 163 recurrent, severe, or refractory VVS patients implanted with conventional pacing. CLS significantly reduced recurrent VVS events compared to conventional pacing (pooled odds ratio = 0.23, 95% confidence interval: 0.13‐0.39, P = 0.000, I (2) = 36.5%) as well as subgroup of four randomized controlled trial studies (pooled odds ratio = 0.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.17‐0.44, P = 0.000, I (2) = 39.2%). CONCLUSION: Closed‐loop stimulation significantly reduced recurrent VVS events up to 80% when compared to conventional pacing. Our study suggests that CLS is an effective tool for preventing syncope recurrences in patients with recurrent, severe, or refractory cardioinhibitory VVS.