IIa |
Permanent pacemaker implantation is reasonable with severe recurrent breath-holding spells with documentation of cardioinhibitory response on ECG monitoring and complicated by prolonged syncope, prolonged postanoxic convulsions, and other bradycardia-induced symptoms. |
B-NR |
[35,36] |
IIb |
Permanent pacing may be considered for recurrent symptomatic neurocardiogenic syncope associated with documented spontaneous bradycardia or asystole in patients who have failed other medical treatments. |
C-LD |
[37,38] |
IIb |
Permanent pacemaker implantation may be considered in patients with epilepsy associated with severe symptomatic bradycardia (ictal induced) who have failed to improve with antiepileptic medical therapy. |
C-LD |
[39] |
IIINo benefit |
Permanent pacing is not indicated for neurocardiogenic syncope solely on the basis of a positive cardioinhibitory tilt response. |
C-EO |
|
IIIHarm |
Permanent pacing is not indicated for neurocardiogenic syncope with hypotension as the major or significant component of the symptoms. |
C-EO |
|