Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 21, 2025

A New Single Chamber Implantable Defibrillator with Atrial Sensing: A Practical Demonstration of Sensing and Ease of Implantation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Cardiac defibrillator implantation in patients with syncope and inducible ventricular arrhythmia: insights from the
Ann-Kathrin Kahle1,2,3, Jochen Senges4, Matthias Hochadel4
1Division of Cardiology, Angiology, Intensive Care Medicine, EVK Düsseldorf, cNEP, Cardiac Neuro- and Electrophysiology Research Consortium, Kirchfeldstrasse 40, 40217, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Abstract:
History of syncope is an independent predictor for sudden cardiac death. Programmed stimulation may be considered for risk stratification, but data remain sparse among different populations. Here, we analyzed the prognostic value of inducible ventricular arrhythmia (VA) regarding clinical outcome in patients with syncope undergoing defibrillator implantation. Among 4196 patients enrolled in the prospective, multi-center German Device Registry, patients with syncope and inducible VA (n = 285, 6.8%) vs. those with a secondary preventive indication (n = 1885, 45.2%), defined as previously documented sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, serving as a control group were studied regarding demographics, device implantation and post-procedural adverse events. Patients with syncope and inducible VA (64.9 ± 14.4 years, 81.1% male) presented less frequently with congestive heart failure (15.1% vs. 29.1%; p < 0.001) and any structural heart disease (84.9% vs. 89.3%; p = 0.030) than patients with a secondary preventive indication (65.0 ± 13.8 years, 81.0% male). Whereas dilated cardiomyopathy (16.8% vs. 23.8%; p = 0.009) was less common, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (5.6% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.010) and Brugada syndrome (2.1% vs. 0.3%; p < 0.001) were present more often. During 1-year-follow-up, mortality (5.1% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.036) and the rate of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (5.8% vs. 10.0%; p = 0.027) were lower in patients with syncope and inducible VA. Among patients with inducible VA, post-procedural adverse events including rehospitalization (27.6% vs. 21.7%; p = 0.37) did not differ between those with vs. without syncope. Taken together, patients with syncope and inducible VA have better clinical outcomes than patients with a secondary preventive defibrillator indication, but comparable outcomes to patients without syncope, which underlines the relevance of VA inducibility, potentially irrespective of a syncope.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
Disturbances in Heart Rhythm
Arrhythmias are categorized by their speed, rhythm, and origin. A slow...
ECG Interpretation of Arrhythmias II: Atrial, Junctional and Ventricular Arrhythmias

