July 1, 1997Circulation
Effects of Permanent Pacemaker and Oral Theophylline in Sick Sinus Syndrome
Why the study?
Does oral theophylline or dual-chamber pacemaker therapy improve clinical outcomes and symptoms in patients with symptomatic sick sinus syndrome compared to no treatment?
Population
107 patients with symptomatic sick sinus syndrome (SSS), mean age 73 +/- 11 years.
Comparison
Oral theophylline or dual-chamber… vs No treatment (control group, n=35).
Design
RCT, Randomized to no treatment, oral theophylline, or dual-chamber…
Follow-up
up to 48 months (mean, 19 +/- 14 months)
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Overview
Supports pacemaker over theophylline for symptomatic sick sinus syndrome; extends RCT evidence to syncope and heart failure reduction.
Structured PICO
Does oral theophylline or dual-chamber pacemaker therapy improve clinical outcomes and symptoms in patients with symptomatic sick sinus syndrome compared to no treatment?
P
Population
107 patients with symptomatic sick sinus syndrome (SSS), mean age 73 +/- 11 years.
I
Intervention
Oral theophylline (n=36) or dual-chamber rate-responsive pacemaker therapy (n=36).
C
Comparator
No treatment (control group, n=35).
O
Outcome
Occurrence of syncope, heart failure, sustained paroxysmal tachyarrhythmias, permanent atrial fibrillation, thromboembolic events, and symptom scores.hard clinical
In symptomatic sick sinus syndrome, pacemaker therapy reduces syncope and heart failure, while theophylline reduces heart failure, though symptom improvement may partly reflect spontaneous disease improvement.
Cite This Study
Alboni et al. (1997) studied this question.