Efficacy of tilt training in the treatment of neurally mediated syncope. A randomized study
Open accessAbstract
Recurrent neurally mediated syncope represents a common clinical event and a therapeutic challenge. Recently tilt training has been proposed for the treatment of recurrent neurally mediated syncope. To evaluate the efficacy of tilt training in preventing tilt-induced syncope and its feasibility, this controlled, randomized study was undertaken. Sixty-eight consenting patients (25 males and 43 females, mean age 40 +/- 19) with recurrent neurally mediated syncope and 2 consecutive positive nitroglycerin-potentiated head-up tilt tests were randomized to tilt training (35 patients) or no treatment (controls, 33 patients). The tilt training programme consisted of daily 30-min sessions of upright standing against a vertical wall 6 days a week for at least 3 weeks, until a reevaluation tilt test (3 patients of both groups dropped out). On this third head-up tilt test, 19 (59%) of 32 tilt trained patients and 18 (60%) of 30 controls still had a positive test. Treated patients performed a mean number of 15 +/- 7 sessions (median 16) and only 11 patients (34%) did all the programmed sessions. Only 1 patient (3%) discontinued treatment because of intolerance, while all other patients did not perform tilt training adequately, because of poor compliance. Thus, in our study tilt training was not effective in reducing tilt testing positivity rate in patients with neurally mediated syncope. Because of poor compliance, tilt training appears to be a feasible treatment only for highly motivated patients, but not for the majority of patients with recurrent neurally mediated syncope.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most controlled trials reported no significant effect of tilt training.
“most controlled trials reported no significant effect. 268-272”
From 2018 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (2018) · cites this paper as [268]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 127
- Authors
- Foglia-Manzillo, G.
- Affiliations
- Ospedale Valduce (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Foglia-Manzillo, G
- Venue
- Europace
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-05
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 199-204
- ISSN
- 1099-5129 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2104109433
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 6.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- EP Europace (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
- Keywords
- neurally mediated syncope, tilt training, recurrent syncope, head-up tilt, treatment efficacy, medication adherence
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Blood Pressure, Feasibility Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Posture, Prospective Studies, Treatment Failure, Tilt-Table Test, Syncope, Vasovagal, Secondary Prevention
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review