Journal of cardiology · 2019
Efficacy of cilostazol for sick sinus syndrome to avoid permanent pacemaker implantation: A retrospective case-control study.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sonoura Takuryu, Kodera Satoshi, Shakya Sandeep, Kanda Junji
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Currently, bradycardia treatment is limited to permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation. No consensus exists as to its optimal medication regimen. However, as cilostazol accelerates heart rate (HR) in bradycardia, we investigated its efficacy for sick sinus syndrome (SSS) to avoid permanent PM implantation.
METHODS: This was a retrospective, case-control study. We included 192 consecutive patients diagnosed with SSS (after applying some exclusion criteria), of whom 54 received cilostazol (cilostazol group) and 138 did not receive cilostazol (control group). The primary endpoint was the PM implantation rate after 6 months; secondary endpoints were 1- and 3-month PM implantation rates, HR after 1 week, 1 and 6 months, and cilostazol side effects.
RESULTS: The 6-month PM implantation rate was lower in the cilostazol than the control group (20.4% vs. 55.8%, respectively; p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, cilostazol decreased the 6-month PM implantation rate (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.08-0.55; p=0.001). Although baseline HR was significantly lower in the cilostazol group, HR in this group increased and did not significantly differ between the two groups after 1 week, 1 and 6 months. In subgroup analyses of symptomatic patients, the PM implantation rates after 6 months were significantly lower in the cilostazol group than in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol was effective for symptomatic SSS to avoid PM implantation by increasing HR.
METHODS: This was a retrospective, case-control study. We included 192 consecutive patients diagnosed with SSS (after applying some exclusion criteria), of whom 54 received cilostazol (cilostazol group) and 138 did not receive cilostazol (control group). The primary endpoint was the PM implantation rate after 6 months; secondary endpoints were 1- and 3-month PM implantation rates, HR after 1 week, 1 and 6 months, and cilostazol side effects.
RESULTS: The 6-month PM implantation rate was lower in the cilostazol than the control group (20.4% vs. 55.8%, respectively; p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, cilostazol decreased the 6-month PM implantation rate (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.08-0.55; p=0.001). Although baseline HR was significantly lower in the cilostazol group, HR in this group increased and did not significantly differ between the two groups after 1 week, 1 and 6 months. In subgroup analyses of symptomatic patients, the PM implantation rates after 6 months were significantly lower in the cilostazol group than in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol was effective for symptomatic SSS to avoid PM implantation by increasing HR.