P453 RECURRENT SYNCOPAL EPISODES IN A YOUNG PATIENT: TO IMPLANT THE PM OR NOT TO IMPLANT THE PM, ALWAYS A DIFFICULT DECISION!

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Syncope represents one of the main causes of access to the Emergency Department and outpatient visits, accounting for up to 13% of hospital admissions. Although usually benign, syncopal episodes are a source of considerable distress for the patient and family members, particularly when dealing with otherwise healthy young patients. We report the case of a young patient who presented with recurrent syncopal episodes with important psychological and professional implications. Case Report A 33–year–old man comes to our Syncope Unit with a long history of repeated syncopal episodes preceded by fleeting warning signs, sometimes with minor trauma, occurring during daily activities, in conjunction with minor injuries or post–voiding but never during exertion. The patient began to limit his activities for fear of syncope and was inhibited from driving work vehicles and performing tasks at height. The various cardiological examinations performed over the years were normal. The study of syncope evoked a syncope with a 13 sec pause on carotid sinus massage while the Head–up Tilt Test was negative. A Loop Recorder (ILR) was then implanted to correlate the syncopal episodes with any slowing or pathological pauses in the heart rhythm. At remote monitoring of the ILR, an asystole of about 16 seconds symptomatic for syncope was documented. In relation to the recurring syncopal episodes, the important professional limitations imposed on the patient, as well as at the explicit request of the patient himself, despite the lacking scientific evidences availables, we proceeded to implant a dual–chamber pacemaker with a frequency response algorithm. In the 4 years after the implant there were no syncopal recurrences and the patient resumed his normal daily and professional activities with a marked improvement also in his psychological setting. After 2.5 years, however, the ventricular lead broke and required its extraction and reimplantation. Conclusions The decision to implant the device was not easy, precisely in relation to the possible complications over the years, but this allowed the patient to resume a normal private and professional life. However, an accurate risk–benefit assessment is required, sharing the "weight" of the decision with the patient and his family.