Cited by 72Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

Age-Dependent Effect of β-Blockers in Preventing Vasovagal Syncope

Open access
Sheldon, Robert S., Morillo, Carlos A., Klingenheben, Thomas, Krahn, Andrew D., Sheldon, Aaron, Rose, M. Sarah·2012·Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology

Abstract

Background—: β-blockers have little effectiveness in preventing vasovagal syncope in unselected populations, but they might be effective in older patients. We determined whether β-blockers prevent vasovagal syncope in an age-related fashion. Methods and Results—: Two populations were studied. A proportional hazards analysis was performed on an observational cohort study of 153 patients with vasovagal syncope, 52 of whom received β-blockers. A multivariable proportional hazards model stratified by center was performed on 208 participants in the randomized Prevention of Syncope Trial (POST), examining the interaction between age group and treatment with metoprolol. Age-specific hazard ratios were estimated for both studies and combined using the inverse variance meta-analytic method. In the cohort study, the hazard ratio for syncope if treated with β-blockers was 1.54 (95% CI, 0.78–3.05) for patients aged <42 years and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.12–1.92) for patients aged ≥42 years. In POST, the proportional hazards model showed interactions between age and treatment effect ( P =0.026). The hazard ratio for patients aged ≥42 years who received metoprolol was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.25–1.10); in patients aged <42 years, the hazard ratio was 1.62 (95% CI, 0.85–3.10). A pooled analysis of both studies yielded an estimate of the hazard ratio of 1.58 (CI, 1.00–2.31) for patients aged <42 years, and the hazard ratio was 0.52 (CI, 0.27–1.01) for patients aged ≥42 years. The 2 age groups differed significantly in response to β-blockers ( P =0.007). Conclusions—: β-blocker treatment may suppress vasovagal syncope in middle-aged patients aged >42 years.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circep.112.974386

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In a meta-analysis of a prespecified, prestratified substudy of POST 1 and a large earlier observational study, there was evidence of benefit in patients older than 40 years.

    “However, in a meta analysis of a prespecified, prestratified substudy of POST 1 and a large earlier observational study, there was evidence of benefit in patients older than 40 years.122”

    From 2015 Heart Rhythm Society Expert Consensus Statement on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Postural Tachycardia Syndrome, Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia, and Vasovagal Syncope (2015) · cites this paper as [122]

    The paper’s Abstract and Combined Populations section describe a meta-analysis of POST and an earlier observational cohort, with a pooled estimate suggesting benefit in older patients. However, the analysis used an age cutoff of ≥42 years, not older than 40; the pooled 95% confidence interval also included no effect. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sheldon, R. S., Morillo, C. A., Klingenheben, T., Krahn, A. D., Sheldon, A., & Rose, M. S.
Affiliations
Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Venue
Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
Published
2012-10
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
920-926
ISSN
  • 1941-3084 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-3149
OpenAlex
W2160392175
Cited by
72
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Calgary
  • Hospital Research Foundation
  • Killam Trusts
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Keywords
beta-blockers, vasovagal syncope, metoprolol, elderly patients, middle-aged patients, syncope prevention, age-stratified analysis
MeSH terms
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists, Adult, Age Factors, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Metoprolol, Middle Aged, Survival Rate, Proportional Hazards Models, Treatment Outcome, Tilt-Table Test, 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