Endocardial Autonomic Denervation of the Left Atrium to Treat Vasovagal Syncope: An Early Experience in Humans
Abstract
Background Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is the most common cause of recurrent syncope that can be debilitating despite optimal conventional therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of selective endocardial autonomic denervation in left atrium (LA) as an alternative treatment strategy in patients with highly symptomatic VVS. Methods and results Ten consecutive patients (mean age, 50.4±6.4 years; 7 women) with a medium of 3.5 (range, 2-20) recurrent episodes of VVS during the preceding year and positive head-up tilt testing in whom standard therapies were ineffective or poorly tolerated were enrolled. Ganglionated plexi (GP) in the LA, identified by high-frequency stimulation, was targeted by radiofrequency catheter ablation. The patients were then followed up at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months, including repeated head-up tilt testing and Holter at 3 and 12 months. Radiofrequency energy was applied at the left superior GP in 10 patients, right anterior GP in 5, and left inferior GP in 3, using an 8-mm ablation catheter. Vagal response, defined as transient ventricular asystole, atrioventricular block, or an increase in R-R interval by 50%, was observed during ablation in all GP sites. The end point of procedure was the inhibition of the vagal response at target sites. At 30±16 (range, 13-55) months of follow-up, no patient had any recurrence of syncope and all patients had significant improvement in symptoms, but 5 of 10 patients reported transient pro…
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?
Preliminary data from cardiac ganglia plexi ablation in treating selected patients with VVS are encouraging.
“Preliminary data from cardiac ganglia plexi ablation in treating selected patients with VVS are encouraging but still insufficient to make recommendations at this time (370–372).”
From 2017 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Syncope (2017) · cites this paper as [371]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 25 · Cited by 155
- Authors
- Yao, Y., Shi, R., Wong, T., Zheng, L., Chen, W., Yang, L., Huang, W., Bao, J., & Zhang, S.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Yao, Yan
- Shi, Rui
- Venue
- Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
- Published
- 2012-04
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 279-286
- ISSN
- 1941-3084 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-3149
- OpenAlex
- W2105700687
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 5.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Circulation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
- Keywords
- vasovagal syncope, left atrium, ganglionated plexi, radiofrequency catheter ablation, vagal response, recurrent syncope, head-up tilt, vagus nerve stimulation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Endocardium, Feasibility Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Heart Atria, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Recurrence, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Catheter Ablation, Autonomic Denervation, Syncope, Vasovagal
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