The role of tilt training in preventing recurrent syncope in patients with vasovagal syncope: a prospective and randomized study
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recurrent vasovagal syncope (VVS) can be a severely disabling disorder that may lead to an important deterioration of quality of life because of the severity and recurrence of episodes. This study sought to investigate the effectiveness of repeated orthostatic self-training in preventing syncope in patients with recurrent VVS. METHODS: Eighty-two consecutive patients (mean age 41 +/- 4 years, 37 males) with recurrent VVS episodes and positive head-up tilt testing (HUT) were enrolled in this study. The patients were then randomized (1:1) to conventional therapy or conventional therapy plus additional tilt training sessions. The patients were followed for spontaneous syncope for one year. Primary end-points were the recurrence of syncope, the number of episodes, and the interval of time to the first recurrence. RESULTS: There were no significant differences of baseline clinical characteristics and parameters of HUT between the tilt training and control groups. The patients had 4 +/- 2/year syncopal episodes prior to the HUT. The mean follow-up after randomization was 12 +/- 2 months. Spontaneous syncope recurrence during follow-up was 56% (23 patients) versus 37% (15 patients) in the control and tilt training groups, respectively (P = 0.1). Time to first recurrence was also similar in both groups (70 +/- 20 days vs 50 +/- 15 days, P = 0.09). The frequency of recurrent syncopes was similar in all types of VVSs while the rate of episodes was significantly higher in control group in patients with vasodepressor type during follow-up period (32% vs 10%, P = 0.04). The mean number of recurrent syncope episodes was also similar in both groups (3 +/- 1 vs 2 +/- 1, P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Tilt training was unable to influence the spontaneous syncope recurrence for recurrent VVS except for vasodepressor type.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 [271]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 78
- Authors
- DUYGU, H., ZOGHI, M., TURK, U., AKYUZ, S., OZERKAN, F., AKILLI, A., ERTURK, U., ONDER, R., & AKIN, M.
- Affiliations
- Ege University (TR)
- Corresponding author
- DUYGU, HAMZA
- Venue
- Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-04-24
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 592-596
- ISSN
- 0147-8389 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-8159
- OpenAlex
- W2034980196
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 7.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
- Keywords
- vasovagal syncope, recurrent syncope, tilt training, head-up tilt, syncope prevention, vasodepressor syncope, syncope recurrence
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Biofeedback, Psychology, Female, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Self Care, Treatment Outcome, Tilt-Table Test, Syncope, Vasovagal, Physical Therapy Modalities, 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