Cited by 278Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlVestibular and auditory disorders

Prevention of Syncope Trial (POST): A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Metoprolol in the Prevention of Vasovagal Syncope

Sheldon, Robert, Connolly, Stuart, Rose, Sarah, Klingenheben, Thomas, Krahn, Andrew, Morillo, Carlos, Talajic, Mario, Ku, Teresa +3 more·2006·Circulation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies that assessed the effects of beta-blockers in preventing vasovagal syncope provided mixed results. Our goal was to determine whether treatment with metoprolol reduces the risk of syncope in patients with vasovagal syncope. METHODS AND RESULTS: The multicenter Prevention of Syncope Trial (POST) was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, trial designed to assess the effects of metoprolol in vasovagal syncope over a 1-year treatment period. Two prespecified analyses included the relationships of age and initial tilt-test results to any benefit from metoprolol. All patients had >2 syncopal spells and a positive tilt test. Randomization was stratified according to ages <42 and > or =42 years. Patients received either metoprolol or matching placebo at highest-tolerated doses from 25 to 200 mg daily. The main outcome measure was the first recurrence of syncope. A total of 208 patients (mean age 42+/-18 years) with a median of 9 syncopal spells over a median of 11 years were randomized, 108 to receive metoprolol and 100 to the placebo group. There were 75 patients with > or =1 recurrence of syncope. The likelihood of recurrent syncope was not significantly different between groups. Neither the age of the patient nor the need for isoproterenol to produce a positive tilt test predicted subsequent significant benefit from metoprolol. CONCLUSIONS: Metoprolol was not effective in preventing vasovagal syncope in the study population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.105.535161

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Beta-blockers failed to be effective in VVS in two randomized double-blind controlled trials.

    “Beta-blockers failed to be effective in VVS in two randomized double-blind controlled trials. 279,280”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 31 · Cited by 278

Authors
Sheldon, R., Connolly, S., Rose, S., Klingenheben, T., Krahn, A., Morillo, C., Talajic, M., Ku, T., Fouad-Tarazi, F., Ritchie, D., & Koshman, M.-L.
Affiliations
Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Venue
Circulation
Published
2006-03-07
Volume
113
Issue
9
Pages
1164-1170
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2124524808
Cited by
278
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 22
FWCI
24.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Calgary
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
vasovagal syncope, metoprolol, beta-blockers, syncope prevention, recurrent syncope, tilt table test, isoproterenol, age as predictor of treatment response
MeSH terms
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists, Adult, Age Factors, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Metoprolol, Middle Aged, Placebos, Recurrence, Incidence, Treatment Failure, Tilt-Table Test, Syncope, Vasovagal, Maximum Tolerated Dose

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