AimsTo collect information on the use of the Reveal implantable loop recorder (ILR) in the patient care pathway and to investigate its effectiveness in the diagnosis of unexplained recurrent syncope in everyday clinical practice.Methods and resultsProspective, multicentre, observational study conducted in 2006–2009 in 10 European countries and Israel. Eligible patients had recurrent unexplained syncope or pre-syncope. Subjects received a Reveal Plus, DX or XT. Follow up was until the first recurrence of a syncopal event leading to a diagnosis or for ≥1 year. In the course of the study, patients were evaluated by an average of three different specialists for management of their syncope and underwent a median of 13 tests (range 9–20). Significant physical trauma had been experienced in association with a syncopal episode by 36% of patients. Average follow-up time after ILR implant was 10 ± 6 months. Follow-up visit data were available for 570 subjects. The percentages of patients with recurrence of syncope were 19, 26, and 36% after 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Of 218 events within the study, ILR-guided diagnosis was obtained in 170 cases (78%), of which 128 (75%) were cardiac.ConclusionA large number of diagnostic tests were undertaken in patients with unexplained syncope without providing conclusive data. In contrast, the ILR revealed or contributed to establishing the mechanism of syncope in the vast majority of patients. The findings support the recommendation in current guidelines that an ILR should be implanted early rather than late in the evaluation of unexplained syncope.

These findings indicate that beta-blockers decrease melatonin release via specific inhibition of adrenergic beta1-receptors. Since lower nocturnal melatonin levels might be the reason for sleep disturbances, further clinical studies should investigate whether or not oral administration of melatonin might avoid this well-known side-effect of beta-blockers. The reason why (R,S)-carvedilol does not influence melatonin production remains to be determined.

Aims The study was intended to assess the prognostic value of inducibility of atrial fibrillation (AF) after radio frequency ablation. Methods and results Two hundred and thirty four patients with drug-resistant paroxysmal (n ¼ 165) or persistent AF (n ¼ 69) underwent either Lasso-guided segmental pulmonary vein isolation (n ¼ 83) or CARTO-guided left atrial circumferential ablation (n ¼ 151). After ablation, two attempts to induce AF (.1 min) by decremental coronary sinus stimulation were performed. Patients were followed for at least 6 months (median: 12.7 months). At 6 months of follow-up, 67% of patients with paroxysmal and 48% of patients with persistent AF were AF-free. Inducibility of AF was a significant predictor of AF recurrence in univariate [hazard ratio (HR) ¼ 2.32, P , 0.001] and multivariable (HR ¼ 2.19, P , 0.001) Cox regression analyses. The prognostic value of inducibility was present in both patients with paroxysmal (HR ¼ 2.38, P ¼ 0.001) and persistent AF (HR ¼ 1.91, P ¼ 0.034) and did not significantly differ between both ablation techniques. The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of the AF induction test to predict the 6-month ablation outcome were 46.7, 75, 53.8, and 69.2%, respectively. Conclusion Inducibility of AF after ablation is a significant predictor of recurrent AF. However, owing to the low diagnostic accuracy of the AF induction test, non-inducibility does not qualify as reliable procedural endpoint.

No abstract

No abstract