SyncopeSTUTTERNCT03974412
Syncope Trial to Understand Tilt Testing Early or Recorders Study
A study testing Head Up Tilt Table (HUT) and Implantable Loop Recorder in people with Syncope, run by University of Alberta at 2 sites in Canada.
Trial summary
Pragmatic research study to determine which of the two standard syncope therapies yields a faster path to diagnosis- head up tilt (HUT) table or implantable loop recorder (ILR). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 50 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Syncope
- What is being tested?
- Head Up Tilt Table (HUT) and Implantable Loop Recorder
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesCanada
- Study dates
- 28 May 2019to 31 Dec 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 50 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 50 years old
- syncope (defined in 2017 ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines[16]) in the prior 12 months
- diagnosis unclear after history, physical exam andelectrocardiogram
- no apparent risk of death due to the cause of syncope.
Who cannot join
- inability to give informed consent
- unable to attend routine follow up in device clinic
- positive carotid sinus massage.
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
Canada2 sites
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2B7
About this study
Pragmatic research study to determine which of the two standard syncope therapies yields a faster path to diagnosis- head up tilt (HUT) table or implantable loop recorder (ILR).
Read the detailed description
RESEARCH QUESTION: In syncope patients at least 50 years of age, a strategy of first conducting a tilt table (HUT) will provide an earlier diagnosis at less cost than a strategy of first implanting an implantable loop recorder (ILR).
BACKGROUND: Syncope is a common condition. Approximately 0.6%- 1.5% of all Emergency Department (ED) visits occurs for syncope and of these, anywhere from 12%-83% are admitted, depending on the country. The incidence rates for acute care visits increases with age and rises steeply after the age of 50 years. Approximately one third of patients have at least one recurrence of syncope in 3 years of follow-up. A recent analysis from Alberta found the total cost of syncope presentations to the ED was $530 million dollars over a 6-year period. Syncope has numerous causes, ranging from benign to life threatening, and determining the underlying etiology is often challenging. Reflex syncope (vasovagal) is the most frequent cause of syncope in all age groups and clinical settings. However, arrhythmic causes, with higher clinical risk, become more common in older patients, and are responsible for about 10% of syncope visits to the ED. The current approach for investigation of patients with unexplained syncope is usually unstructured, with multiple specialist evaluations, numerous and expensive tests, and recurring acute care visits. This results in high and unnecessary costs. There are three competing approaches to diagnosis: a structured history, head-up tilt (HUT) test, and implantable loop recorders (ILR).
Often syncope can be diagnosed on the basis of history, physical examination, and electrocardiogram (ECG). However, even after this initial evaluation, syncope may remain unexplained, accounting for as many as 41% of cases in older patients. In older patients, history is often less reliable, due to a lack of autonomic symptoms associated with vasovagal syncope, amnesia for pre-syncopal symptoms, and lack of witnesses. Further, co-morbidities and polypharmacy add complexity to the diagnostic process. HUT: The HUT test has been used to evaluate patients with syncope for nearly 3 decades. It is an orthostatic stress test to assess the susceptibility of a vasovagal response to a postural change from a supine to an upright position. A positive response is defined as inducible presyncope or syncope associated with hypotension, with or without bradycardia (including asystole) that reproduces clinical symptoms. HUT has been used in patients with suspected vasovagal syncope, when the history is unhelpful. Although enthusiasm has waned for the role of HUT in the evaluation of syncope due to variable protocols leading to high heterogeneity of test outcomes, false-positives in controls, and availability of long-term cardiac monitoring; there is good evidence for its usefulness.
ILR is a small subcutaneously implanted device, lasting up to 3 years, that records heart rhythms, and which may be either auto-triggered or patientactivated.
Early observational and case-control studies found that the ILR leads to earlier diagnosis and reduced the rate of unexplained syncope compared to HUT. Despite ILR entering routine clinic practice over the last 25 years, there are surprisingly few rigorous data of its use in the management of unexplained syncope. Comparisons of strategies of HUT and ILR: Two randomized controlled studies have reported on the diagnostic yield of an early ILR strategy compared to conventional testing including HUT in older patients with unexplained syncope. All reported an increased diagnostic accuracy with ILR and a lower cost per diagnosis, but each has substantial limitations. Study Structure: This will be a formal pragmatic study of 2 diagnostic strategies, designed around the PRECIS2 criteria addressing which test should be done first, and subsequent care will be left in the hands of the physician responsible for assessing syncope. Settings: Patients will be recruited from the ED, general cardiology, arrhythmia, and syncope clinics, and medical and cardiology wards.
Randomization: Patients will be randomized to either i) the early HUT [protocol:
supine pre-tilt phase 5 min, un-medicated HUT to 70 degrees for 20 minutes; if response negative then 400 μg of sublingual nitroglycerin and continued 70 degree tilt for 20 minutes] OR ii) early implant of ILR without hospital admission.
Regardless of the outcome, subsequent testing and care will be in the hands of the responsible physician. Patients will be seen 1 week after ILR implantation for wound assessment and to reinforce patient understanding of the activation process. Subsequent 3-year follow-up will occur according to the policies of the device clinic (usually every 6 months). Patients will be seen quickly after a symptomatic event.
- Conditions
- Syncope
- Being tested
- Head Up Tilt Table (HUT), Implantable Loop Recorder
- Keywords
- syncope, head-up tilt table, implantable loop recorder, pragmatic
- Medical subject headings
- Syncope
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Head Up Tilt Table (HUT)Diagnostic test
Participant randomized to open-label diagnostic strategy. Results and all follow-up care to be in the hands of treating cardiologist as this is a pragmatic study.
the early HUT [protocol: supine pre-tilt phase 5 min, un-medicated HUT to 70 degrees for 20 minutes; if response negative then 400 μg of sublingual nitroglycerin and continued 70 degree tilt for 20 minutes]
Implantable Loop RecorderDevice
ILR is a small subcutaneously implanted device, lasting up to 3 years, that records heart rhythms, and which may be either auto-triggered or patientactivated.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| All eligible participants | Experimental | All eligible participants are randomly assigned to one of two interventions- early Head-Up Tilt Table procedure or early Implantable Loop Recorder. The assignment is random and at a 1:1 ratio between the two strategies. Receives: Diagnostic Test: Head Up Tilt Table (HUT); Device: Implantable Loop Recorder |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Time to diagnosis
the proportion of patients with a definite diagnosis by 1 year.
Measured: 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 Jun 2019
- Study start28 May 2019
- Primary completion31 Dec 2024
- Study completion31 Dec 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for SyncopeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Alberta
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03974412
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Pro00087832
- Acronym
- STUTTER
- Status last verified
- Apr 2025
- First submitted
- 2 Jun 2019
- Last updated
- 15 Apr 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Apr 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Syncope Trial to Understand Tilt Testing Early or Recorders Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03974412
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- STUTTER / Pro00087832
- Conditions
- Syncope
- Keywords
- syncope, head-up tilt table, implantable loop recorder, pragmatic
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of AlbertaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 28 May 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 4 Jun 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Pragmatic research study to determine which of the two standard syncope therapies yields a faster path to diagnosis- head up tilt (HUT) table or implantable loop recorder (ILR).
Detailed description
RESEARCH QUESTION: In syncope patients at least 50 years of age, a strategy of first conducting a tilt table (HUT) will provide an earlier diagnosis at less cost than a strategy of first implanting an implantable loop recorder (ILR).
BACKGROUND: Syncope is a common condition. Approximately 0.6%- 1.5% of all Emergency Department (ED) visits occurs for syncope and of these, anywhere from 12%-83% are admitted, depending on the country. The incidence rates for acute care visits increases with age and rises steeply after the age of 50 years. Approximately one third of patients have at least one recurrence of syncope in 3 years of follow-up. A recent analysis from Alberta found the total cost of syncope presentations to the ED was $530 million dollars over a 6-year period. Syncope has numerous causes, ranging from benign to life threatening, and determining the underlying etiology is often challenging. Reflex syncope (vasovagal) is the most frequent cause of syncope in all age groups and clinical settings. However, arrhythmic causes, with higher clinical risk, become more common in older patients, and are responsible for about 10% of syncope visits to the ED. The current approach for investigation of patients with unexplained syncope is usually unstructured, with multiple specialist evaluations, numerous and expensive tests, and recurring acute care visits. This results in high and unnecessary costs. There are three competing approaches to diagnosis: a structured history, head-up tilt (HUT) test, and implantable loop recorders (ILR).
Often syncope can be diagnosed on the basis of history, physical examination, and electrocardiogram (ECG). However, even after this initial evaluation, syncope may remain unexplained, accounting for as many as 41% of cases in older patients. In older patients, history is often less reliable, due to a lack of autonomic symptoms associated with vasovagal syncope, amnesia for pre-syncopal symptoms, and lack of witnesses. Further, co-morbidities and polypharmacy add complexity to the diagnostic process. HUT: The HUT test has been used to evaluate patients with syncope for nearly 3 decades. It is an orthostatic stress test to assess the susceptibility of a vasovagal response to a postural change from a supine to an upright position. A positive response is defined as inducible presyncope or syncope associated with hypotension, with or without bradycardia (including asystole) that reproduces clinical symptoms. HUT has been used in patients with suspected vasovagal syncope, when the history is unhelpful. Although enthusiasm has waned for the role of HUT in the evaluation of syncope due to variable protocols leading to high heterogeneity of test outcomes, false-positives in controls, and availability of long-term cardiac monitoring; there is good evidence for its usefulness.
ILR is a small subcutaneously implanted device, lasting up to 3 years, that records heart rhythms, and which may be either auto-triggered or patientactivated.
Early observational and case-control studies found that the ILR leads to earlier diagnosis and reduced the rate of unexplained syncope compared to HUT. Despite ILR entering routine clinic practice over the last 25 years, there are surprisingly few rigorous data of its use in the management of unexplained syncope. Comparisons of strategies of HUT and ILR: Two randomized controlled studies have reported on the diagnostic yield of an early ILR strategy compared to conventional testing including HUT in older patients with unexplained syncope. All reported an increased diagnostic accuracy with ILR and a lower cost per diagnosis, but each has substantial limitations. Study Structure: This will be a formal pragmatic study of 2 diagnostic strategies, designed around the PRECIS2 criteria addressing which test should be done first, and subsequent care will be left in the hands of the physician responsible for assessing syncope. Settings: Patients will be recruited from the ED, general cardiology, arrhythmia, and syncope clinics, and medical and cardiology wards.
Randomization: Patients will be randomized to either i) the early HUT [protocol:
supine pre-tilt phase 5 min, un-medicated HUT to 70 degrees for 20 minutes; if response negative then 400 μg of sublingual nitroglycerin and continued 70 degree tilt for 20 minutes] OR ii) early implant of ILR without hospital admission.
Regardless of the outcome, subsequent testing and care will be in the hands of the responsible physician. Patients will be seen 1 week after ILR implantation for wound assessment and to reinforce patient understanding of the activation process. Subsequent 3-year follow-up will occur according to the policies of the device clinic (usually every 6 months). Patients will be seen quickly after a symptomatic event.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| All eligible participants | Experimental | Diagnostic Test: Head Up Tilt Table (HUT), Device: Implantable Loop RecorderAll eligible participants are randomly assigned to one of two interventions- early Head-Up Tilt Table procedure or early Implantable Loop Recorder. The assignment is random and at a 1:1 ratio between the two strategies. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 50 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 50 years old
- syncope (defined in 2017 ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines[16]) in the prior 12 months
- diagnosis unclear after history, physical exam andelectrocardiogram
- no apparent risk of death due to the cause of syncope.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- inability to give informed consent
- unable to attend routine follow up in device clinic
- positive carotid sinus massage.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Head Up Tilt Table (HUT)Participant randomized to open-label diagnostic strategy. Results and all follow-up care to be in the hands of treating cardiologist as this is a pragmatic study. the early HUT [protocol: supine pre-tilt phase 5 min, un-medicated HUT to 70 degrees for 20 minutes; if response negative then 400 μg of sublingual nitroglycerin and continued 70 degree tilt for 20 minutes] | Diagnostic test | All eligible participants |
| Implantable Loop RecorderILR is a small subcutaneously implanted device, lasting up to 3 years, that records heart rhythms, and which may be either auto-triggered or patientactivated. | Device | All eligible participants |
Primary outcome
Time to diagnosis
Time frame: 1 year
the proportion of patients with a definite diagnosis by 1 year.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 Apr 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Syncope
RecruitingObservational study
Whole-Body Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Older Adults Presenting to the Emergency Department After a Fall
Accidental Falls, Aged
Not yet recruiting
Head-to-Head (H2H) Comparison of Ambulatory Cardiac ECG Monitors in Japan
Atrial Fibrillation (AF), Atrial Flutter
RecruitingObservational study
Fainting Detection And Early Warning In Syncope Evaluation Study (ARISE)
Orthostatic Hypotension, Reflex Syncope
Active, not recruiting
Cardioneuroablation for Reflex Syncope and Exercise Capacity
Syncope, Vasovagal
RecruitingObservational study
Biospecimen Repository for Cardiac Arrhythmias at the Cleveland Clinic
Arrhythmias, Cardiac
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Head Up Tilt Table (HUT) and Implantable Loop Recorder in people with Syncope, run by University of Alberta at 2 sites in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 Apr 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Time to diagnosis (time frame: 1 year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 Apr 2025; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.