Some helpful messages have been proposed in several Clinically, some patients may not have severeīradycardia requiring a pacemaker implantation but cannot be observed without However, some patientsĪre reluctant to undergo permanent pacing due to the fear of having a device Implantation (Alt et al., 1985 Tung et al., 1994). Improvement in the symptoms except for dizziness between the two agents.Ĭilostazol was as effective as theophylline for increasing the HR in SSSĪ decreasing heart rate (HR) in patients with sinus node dysfunction (SND)Īggravates the symptoms related to bradycardia such as fatigue, dizziness,ĭyspnea, and syncope, which are indications for a permanent pacemaker There were no significant differences in the Symptoms such as dyspnea, chestĭiscomfort, dizziness, and syncope significantly improved after theĪdministration of the medications. The HR increased from 61.4 ± 13.8 bpm to 64.0 In 15 of the 50 theophylline patients, the medication was Sphygmomanometry ( P < 0.001) and 12.4 ± 13.4 bpm using the ECG In the cilostazol group, the HR increased by 16.8 ± 13.9 bpm by Theophylline group, the HR increased by 12.0 ± 16.3 bpm by sphygmomanometry Using sphygmomanometry and 51.9 ± 11.8 bpm using the ECG. The baseline HR was 54.8 ± 13.5 beats per minute (bpm) on Or 100-200 mg of cilostazol were administered per day in 50 and 30 patients, Sphygmomanometer and the electrocardiogram (ECG). Theophylline or cilostazol was administered,Īnd the heart rate (HR) was evaluated in 4-8 weeks using a digital We retrospectively enrolled SSS patients, who However, no comparison of cilostazol and theophylline The positive effects of cilostazol on bradyarrhythmiasĪlso have been reported. Pacemakers are more commonly recommended than theophylline for sick sinus
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |