45例阵发性房颤患者静脉注射胺碘酮转复的临床分析

目的:评估静脉注射胺碘酮转复阵发性房颤的疗效及安全性。方法:45例阵发性房颤(发作时间≤7 d)患者,均患有器质性心脏病,采用胺碘酮负荷量150 mg,稀释后10 min静脉注射,继之以1 mg/min静脉滴注维持;必要时15 min后重复负荷量150 mg;6 h后以0.5 mg/min维持,转复后逐渐过渡到口服胺碘酮长期维持。结果:24 h内45例心室率均有效控制,37例复律成功,转复成功率82%;转复后出现长RR间期2例,窦性心动过缓2例,无动脉血栓栓塞及尖端扭转性室速发生。结论:静脉注射胺碘酮转复有器质性心脏病合并阵发性房颤患者安全有效,转复治疗中积极防治并发症至关重要。     

大剂量静脉和口服胺碘酮治疗快速心房颤动临床观察

观察静脉、口服胺碘酮治疗快速心房颤动(简称房颤)的临床疗效及安全性。48例快速房颤患者首先给予胺碘酮150mg静脉推注之后以1mg/min静脉维持6h,改为0.5mg/min静脉点滴24～48h;同时用药当天给予口服胺碘酮1200mg,第二天为600mg,3天后改为200mg/d维持。结果:24h内房颤转复9例,转复率39.6%;3天内45例转复率93.8%。应用胺碘酮后心室率明显下降,随时间延长,呈减慢趋势。结论:负荷静脉、口服胺碘酮用药治疗快速房颤可明显减慢心室率,转复房颤安全有效。     

静脉注射胺碘酮与普罗帕酮转复阵发性心房颤动的疗效比较

目的对比研究静脉注射胺碘酮与普罗帕酮转复阵发性心房颤动(房颤)的作用.方法72例房颤持续时间＜48h的患者随机分为二组,胺碘酮组(n=36):胺碘酮150mg 生理盐水10ml,静注,10min注完;普罗帕酮组(n=36):普罗帕酮70mg 生理盐水10ml,静注,5～10min注完.观察30min若未转复可重复应用,最大累积量胺碘酮为450mg,普罗帕酮为210mg.结果转复率:胺碘酮组77.8%(28/36),普罗帕酮组75.0%(27/36),二组转复率比较差异无统计学意义(x2=0.0770,P＞0.05).转复时间:胺碘酮组(50.1±14.8)min,普罗帕酮组(39.6±13.7)min,二组比较差异有统计学意义(t=3 124,P＜0.01).结论胺碘酮和普罗帕酮对阵发性房颤均有较高的转复率,但转复时间普罗帕酮短于胺碘酮.     

非瓣膜病心房颤动的转复及胺碘酮的干预作用

目的:了解阵发性心房颤动(房颤)转复的可能性、预测因素及胺碘酮的转复效果。方法:将112例非瓣膜病阵发性房颤患者分为常规药物治疗组和胺碘酮治疗组,观察治疗48h和7d时,房颤的转复情况。将常规治疗组48h后未复律的患者再随机分为常规治疗组和胺碘酮组,观察用药至7d时房颤的转复情况。结果:胺碘酮组55例房颤患者,治疗48h和7d转复为窦性心律的转复率分别为72.73%和83.63%,常规治疗组48h的转复率为52.63%。未复律的患者给予胺碘酮和常规治疗至7d时房颤的转复率分别为53.84%和28.57%。多因素回归和相关分析表明,左心房扩大是影响房颤转复的主要原因。结论:多于50%的阵发性房颤患者可在48h内转复为窦性心律,胺碘酮对房颤的转复效果优于常规治疗。左心房扩大是影响房颤转复的主要因素。     

静脉用胺碘酮治疗心力衰竭并发阵发性心房颤动52例疗效观察

目的观察静脉用胺碘酮治疗心力衰竭并发阵发性心房颤动（房颤）的疗效。方法选择52例心力衰竭并发阵发性快速型房颤患者,静脉注射胺碘酮150-300 mg的负荷量后,以0.5-1 mg/min持续静滴24 h。观察转复率、转复时间、心室率、心功能及临床症状改善情况和不良反应。结果静脉应用胺碘酮24 h以内有42例（80.8%）转复为窦性心律,转复时间为（9.6±1.3）h,心室率均降至100次/min以内,心功能平均提高（1.3±0.2）级,患者自觉症状明显好转,呼吸困难减轻,肺部罗音减少,治疗后无明显不良反应。结论静脉用胺碘酮对心力衰竭并发阵发性快速型房颤具有较好的疗效和安全性,但须加强监护。     

胺碘酮和毛花甙C转复阵发性心房颤动及 心房扑动疗效的比较

目的对比胺碘酮和毛花甙C治疗阵发性心房颤动(房颤)及心房扑动(房扑)的疗效。方法阵发性房颤及房扑发作1～72h,随机分为胺碘酮组(30例)和毛花甙C组(28例),毛花甙C组静脉注射毛花甙C0.4～0.8mg;胺碘酮组静脉注射胺碘酮150或225mg后改为静脉滴注150～450mg,观察其复律情况,心室率的变化,QT间期及药物副作用。结果毛花甙C组,阵发性房颤24例,复律成功11例,阵发性房扑4例,复律成功2例。胺碘酮组,阵发性房颤25例,复律成功19例,阵发性房扑5例,复律成功3例。两组未复律者心室率均有明显控制,QT间期及副作用差异无显著性意义;毛花甙C组复律平均时间3.5h,胺碘酮组平均复律时间6.5h。结论阵发性房颤及房扑的复律胺碘酮疗效高于毛花甙C,二者心室率的控制及副作用无显著性差别,复律时间毛花甙C短于胺碘酮。     

静脉应用胺碘酮治疗阵发性房颤36例疗效观察

目的观察静脉应用胺碘酮治疗阵发性房颤的临床疗效。方法将68例阵发性房颤病人随机分为治疗组和对照组，治疗组静脉应用胺碘酮150mg加入生理盐水稀释，于10min静脉注入。转复窦性心律后静脉维持（600μg／min），同时口服胺碘酮，每周5d。第1周600mg／d，第2周400mg／d，第3周200mg／d。对照组用普罗帕酮70mg，加入5％葡萄糖液稀释，5min～10min静脉注入。转复窦性心律后次日口服普罗帕酮200mg，8h口服1次，一周后逐渐减量至150mg／d维持。观察两组转复窦性心律的有效率、不良反应及维持率。结果治疗组转复率为86％，维持率为81％；对照组转复率为84％，维持率为56％。结论胺碘酮与普罗帕酮均可静脉应用于转复阵发性房颤。但胺碘酮在维持窦性心律方面较普罗帕酮更为有效。     

胺碘酮与美托洛尔联合应用对非瓣膜病心房颤动的疗效及安全性观察

观察静脉胺碘酮与美托洛尔联合应用对非瓣膜病心房颤动 (简称房颤 )的疗效及安全性。 49例冠心病伴发房颤的患者 ,按既往是否常规服用美托洛尔或氨酰心安而分入A组 ( 2 5例 )、B组 ( 2 4例 )。全部病例先给予胺碘酮负荷量 ( 3～ 5mg/kg)静脉推注 1 0min ,然后以 60 0 μg/min的速度静滴 48h ,B组同时口服美托洛尔 6.2 5～ 2 5mg ,2次/日。行心电、血压监测 ,观察 48h房颤转复率。B组 48h后转复率为 83.3% ( 2 0 /2 4 ) ,A组为 76% ( 1 9/2 5 ) ,P >0 .0 5。A、B两组转复时间、胺碘酮用量及转复后心率比较 ,差异有显著性 ( 1 7.2± 1 0 .6hvs 9.4± 9.2h ;880 .2±395 .3mgvs5 76.4± 331 .9mg ;86.3± 1 8.2次 /分vs76.8± 1 7.9次 /分 ,P均 <0 .0 5 )。副反应发生率A组为 8.0 % ,B组为 8.3% ,P >0 .0 5。结论 :静脉胺碘酮与美托洛尔联合应用对非瓣膜病房颤安全有效 ;与单用胺碘酮相比 ,转复时间短、胺碘酮用量少。     

静脉用胺碘酮和毛花甙C转复阵发性房颤即时疗效对比

目的:比较静脉用胺碘酮和毛花甙C治疗阵发性房颤(PAF)的即时疗效和安全性。方法:84例发作时间在 24～72 h的PAF患者被随机分为胺碘酮组和毛花甙C组(每组42例),分别静脉内给予胺碘酮150～1180 mg和毛花甙C 0．4～0．8 mg。结果:胺碘酮和毛花甙C PAF转复率分别是83．3％和42．9％(P<0．01);未转复者的心室率在胺碘酮组由(128．4±12．3)降至(87．8±11．4)次／min(P<0．01),毛花甙C组由(129．6±13．1)降至(90．3± 11．9)次／min(P<0．01)。两组均无严重副作用发生。结论:静脉用胺碘酮治疗阵发性房颤有效且安全,其转复率显著高于毛花甙C。     

静脉注射联合口服胺碘酮转复阵发性心房纤颤的疗效观察

目的探讨静脉注射联合口服胺碘酮转复阵发性心房纤颤的疗效。方法选取我院2011—2012年诊治的阵发性心房纤颤患者68例,将其随机分为静脉+口服组(n=35)和静脉组(n=33)。静脉组患者首次给予胺碘酮150 mg静脉注射,15 min后若心率下降不满意追加150 mg,随后以0.5 mg/min微泵静脉维持48 h;静脉+口服组在此基础上口服胺碘酮。比较两组治疗12 h、24 h、48 h和7 d后心房纤颤转复率、心室率和治疗期间不良反应发生情况。结果静脉+口服组7 d心房纤颤总转复率为85.7%(30/35),高于静脉组的69.7%(23/33)(χ2=8.94,P0.05)。两组治疗12 h、24 h、48 h和7 d后心室率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。静脉+口服组患者不良反应发生率为14.3%(5/35),与静脉组的12.1%(4/33)比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.75,P0.05)。结论静脉注射胺碘酮的同时口服小剂量胺碘酮可明显提高阵发性心房纤颤转复率,且具有较高的安全性。     

静脉及口服胺碘酮重叠应用治疗器质性心脏病心房颤动伴快速心室率的临床疗效

观察重叠应用静脉及口服胺碘酮治疗器质性心脏病阵发心房颤动 (简称房颤 )伴快速心室率的临床疗效及安全性。 36例器质性心脏病合并房颤的患者 ,男 2 2例、女 14例 ,年龄 6 5 .3± 11.5 (49～ 80 )岁。房颤发作时心室率142 .5± 2 5 .2 (12 0～ 176 )次 /分 ,先给予静脉负荷量胺碘酮 (15 0～ 30 0mg)后 ,继之以 6 0 0 μg/min静脉点滴维持 48h ,同时口服胺碘酮 6 0 0mg/d治疗。结果 :36例患者用药后 30min、1,2 ,2 4,48h心室率分别为 12 4.1± 11.5 ,113.3±8.6 ,10 5 .1± 8.2 ,92 .7± 8.5 ,88.6± 9.4次 /分 ,较用药前明显下降 (P <0 .0 1)。 30例 (83 .3% )患者转复为窦性心律 ,于 2h ,2～ 2 4h ,2 4～ 48h ,2～ 7d转复率分别为 11.1%、2 7.8%、2 2 .2 %和 2 2 .2 %。未转复组患者左房径大于转复组(P <0 .0 5 ) ,而射血分数明显低于转复组 (P <0 .0 5 ) ,这可能是 6例患者未转复的原因。 2例患者用药后出现长RR间期 ,1例出现窦性心动过缓 ,1例出现双手震颤 ,经减药或停药后恢复。结论 :静脉及口服胺碘酮重叠应用治疗器质性心脏病房颤是有效和安全的。     

Combination therapy with amiodarone and enalapril in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation prevents the development of structural atrial remodeling

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between long-term efficacy of amiodarone therapy (100-200 mg/day) combined with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI; enalapril 5 mg/day) administration, and the development of structural atrial remodeling in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Fifty-eight patients (40 men, 18 women, mean age, 68 +/- 8 years, mean follow-up period, 43 +/- 18 months) with AF refractory to >or= two class I antiarrhythmic drugs were divided into two groups; those treated with enalapril on amiodarone (group A, n = 25) and those treated with amiodarone alone (group B, n = 33), to evaluate the efficacy of combination therapy. 1) At 12 and 24 months, the survival rates for patients free from AF recurrence were 80% and 64% in group A, and 45% and 30% in group B, respectively (P < 0.05, group A versus group B). The percentage of patients with conversion to permanent AF despite amiodarone therapy was 20% in group A and 48.5% in group B (P < 0.05, group A versus group B). 2) In group B, left atrial dimension (LAD) was significantly greater after amiodarone therapy (40.2 +/- 6.3 mm) than at baseline (35.2 +/- 6.6 mm) (P < 0.01), whereas there was no significant difference in LAD between baseline and after amiodarone therapy in group A (39.1 +/- 5.0 mm versus 41.0 +/- 5.0 mm, respectively). In patients with paroxysmal AF, ACE-I appears to enhance the efficacy of amiodarone therapy in maintaining sinus rhythm and preventing the development of structural remodeling in atria.     

氯沙坦联合胺碘酮对阵发性心房颤动复律及复律后窦性心律维持的影响

目的 了解氯沙坦联合胺碘酮对阵发性心房颤动的复律效果及复律后窦性心律维持的影响.方法 2003年1月至2005年10月将解放军421医院心内科86例非瓣膜病阵发性心房颤动患者分为胺碘酮治疗组和氯沙坦 胺碘酮治疗组,观察治疗24 h,3 d和7 d时心房颤动的转复情况.在心房颤动复律后,继续药物治疗并随访观察1年,评价两组窦性心律的维持效果.结果 胺碘酮组44例心房颤动患者治疗24 h,3 d和7 d心房颤动的转复率分别为65.90%,75.00%和86.36%,氯沙坦 胺碘酮治疗组的转复率为66.66%,80.95%和95.23%.两组在7 d时心房颤动的转复率差异有显著性意义(P＜0.05).随访1年时两组窦性心律的维持率分别为71.05%和87.50%(P＜0.05),两组左房内径分别为(37.45±1.44)mm和(35.83±1.38)mm(P＜0.05).结论 氯沙坦联合胺碘酮对阵发性心房颤动的复律及复律后窦性心律维持均优于单用胺碘酮治疗,可能与氯沙坦抑制肾素-血管紧张素系统,降低心脏负荷,抑制心房电及结构重构有关.     

Efficacy of amiodarone for preventing the recurrence of symptomatic paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation after cardioversion.

BACKGROUND: It has been previously reported that the efficacy of class I antiarrhythmics in preventing the recurrence of symptomatic paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited when AF lasts for 48 h or more. However, it is unclear whether the efficacy of amiodarone, a class III drug, is superior to class I antiarrhythmics in patients with long-lasting AF. METHOD AND RESULTS: The relationship between the duration of tachycardia and the efficacy of amiodarone in preventing recurrence of tachycardia was examined in 55 patients (37 men, 18 women, mean age 68+/-9 years) to whom amiodarone was administered after electrical or pharmacological cardioversion for paroxysmal and persistent AF. In 26 patients, paroxysmal and persistent AF ceased within 48 h after onset (Group A), and in the other 29 patients, it ceased after 48 h (Group B). Patient characteristics and actuarial recurrence-free rates were compared between the 2 groups. The mean follow-up period was 30+/-11 months. No statistically significant difference between the groups was found in patient characteristics. Actuarial recurrence-free rates in Group A and B at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 100%, 81%, 69%, 62%, and 54%, and 93%, 79%, 66%, 52%, and 48%, respectively (p=NS at 12 months). The period of maintenance of sinus rhythm was 14.7+/-3.2 months in group A and 13.3+/-3.3 months in group B (mean+/-SE, p=NS). CONCLUSION: In the case of amiodarone, efficacy for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of AF was not biased by the duration of arrhythmia. This observation suggests amiodarone is effective in maintaining normal sinus rhythm after cardioversion, even in patients with long-lasting AF and electrical atrial remodeling.     

Role of oral amiodarone in patients with atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure

Background

Amiodarone is recognized as the most effective therapy for maintaining sinus rhythm (SR) post cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). It is also recommended for controlling AF in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). We retrospectively examined the efficacy and safety of oral amiodarone in patients with AF and CHF.

Methods

Forty-eight consecutive AF patients whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was less than 50% and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) was higher than 100 pg/ml were investigated retrospectively, and divided into 3 groups: paroxysmal AF, 16 patients; persistent AF, 9 patients; and permanent AF, 23 patients.

Results

The permanent AF group had a longer history of AF, larger left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVDd) and left atrial diameter (LAD) than paroxysmal and persistent AF groups (p < 0.05). After median follow-up of 265 days, amiodarone suppressed paroxysms in 88% of paroxysmal AF patients, while SR was maintained in all persistent AF patients, and 35% of permanent AF patients. Of the 32 persistent and permanent AF patients, 12 (71%) out of 17 maintained SR after successful electrical cardioversion, and conversion to SR occurred spontaneously in 5 (33%) out of 15. The effective group had significantly smaller LVDd and LAD than the ineffective group. In the effective group, BNP decreased significantly from 723 ± 566 pg/ml to 248 ± 252 pg/ml, (p < 0.0005) and LVEF increased significantly from 33 ± 7% to 50 ± 13% (p < 0.0005) during follow up, while no changes were observed in the ineffective group. The patients with low LVEF (≤30%) benefited comparably from amiodarone to the patients with LVEF >30%. Complications occurred in 24 (50%) patients leading to discontinuation of amiodarone in 11 (23%).

Conclusions

Oral amiodarone helped restore SR in paroxysmal and persistent AF patients with CHF. The successful rhythm control by amiodarone resulted in the improvement of LV function and the decrease of BNP levels.     

Amiodarone and its infusion velocity in recent-onset atrial fibrillation]

Two intravenous amiodarone dosing schedules in 28 patients with atrial fibrillation arisen less than 10 days before, were evaluated. Their effectiveness in converting to sinus rhythm, the incidence of side effects and the relationship between efficacy and plasma concentrations of amiodarone and desethylamiodarone were compared. Schedule A, with amiodarone infusion at a rate of 1.5 mg/kg/h up to two hours after the restoration of sinus rhythm or to a maximum dose of 1200 mg, reverted 86.7% of all patients. Schedule B, with a single amiodarone infusion of 300 mg over 15 minutes, followed by a 300 mg dose maintenance over three hours, reverted 69.2% of all patients. Schedule A was more effective than schedule B (P less than 0.01). Schedule B reverted before A (P less than 0.05). The only transient adverse effects were: superficial phlebitis, symptomatic hypotension and silent QTc lengthening. Amiodarone and desethylamiodarone plasma concentrations were not related to efficacy of the drug in converting sinus rhythm. In conclusion, an intravenous infusion of amiodarone over few hours showed high efficacy (79.6%), wide therapeutic index, good compliance and irrelevant adverse effects in converting patients with recent-onset fibrillation.     

Effectiveness of amiodarone as a single oral dose for recent-onset atrial fibrillation

The efficacy of amiodarone has been proved in long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm (SR) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). The present study evaluates the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of amiodarone in patients with recent-onset AF (<48 hours). Seventy-two patients were randomized to receive 30 mg/kg of either amiodarone or placebo. Conversion to SR was verified by 24-hour Holter monitoring. Ten patients were excluded because of SR in the beginning of monitoring or technical failure during Holter monitoring. The remaining study groups were comparable (n = 31 for each), except that in the placebo group beta blockers were more common. The patients receiving amiodarone converted to SR more effectively than those receiving placebo (p<0.0001). At 8 hours, approximately 50% of patients in the amiodarone group and 20% in the placebo group (Holter successful) had converted to SR, whereas after 24 hours the corresponding figures were 87% and 35%, respectively. The median time for conversion (8.7 hours for amiodarone and 7.9 hours for placebo) did not differ in the groups. Amiodarone was hemodynamically well tolerated, and the number of adverse events in the study groups was similar. Amiodarone as a single oral dose of 30 mg/kg appears to be effective and safe in patients with recent-onset AF.     

Clinical efficacy of irrigated catheter application of amiodarone during ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation

Background

Pharmacological treatment during ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is common, but utility of irrigated catheter application of amiodarone during ablation of persistent AF remains unclear.

Hypothesis

Irrigated catheter application of amiodarone improves quality of ablation and long‐term outcomes.

Methods

We enrolled 90 persistent AF patients who underwent catheter ablation. Patients were randomized to the amiodarone group (n = 45) or control group (n = 45). All patients underwent stepwise ablation beginning with isolation of the pulmonary veins. Next, we performed ablation of linear lesions and focal triggers until sinus rhythm (SR) was achieved. The primary endpoint was documented atrial arrhythmia during follow‐up. The secondary endpoint was cardioversion to SR during ablation.

Results

All pulmonary veins were successfully isolated. Conversion of AF to SR occurred more frequently in the amiodarone group than in the control group (33 vs 23 [73.3% vs 51.1%]; P = 0.03). The amiodarone group had lower procedure, radiofrequency, and fluoroscopy times than the control group (167.4 ± 22.5 min vs 186.7 ± 25.3 min; 78.3 ± 14.2 min vs 90.4 ± 15.5 min; and 6.5 ± 1.9 min vs 8.6 ± 2.4 min, respectively; P < 0.05). More importantly, the atrial arrhythmia recurrence‐free survival rates were 80% in the amiodarone group and 60% in the control group during the 14.7 ± 7.5‐month follow‐up (P = 0.043).

Conclusions

Irrigated catheter application of amiodarone during ablation for persistent AF resulted in higher cardioversion rates and lower procedure times and significantly reduced rates of atrial arrhythmia recurrence.

     

胺碘酮与起搏器联合治疗病窦综合征并阵发性心房颤动的观察

观察胺碘酮与起搏器联合治疗病窦综合征并阵发性心房颤动 (简称房颤 )有效性及安全性。 52例慢 快综合征患者 ,起搏器治疗后仍有阵发性房颤 (经心电图和动态心电图证实 ) ,在停用其他抗心律失常药物至少 5个半衰期后 ,按标准方案给予胺碘酮治疗 :负荷量 0 .2g,3次 /天 ,7天 ;继以 0 .2g,2次 /天 ,7天 ;维持量为 0 .2g ,1次 /天 ,连续服用 3个月。根据临床症状和动态心电图评价疗效及安全性。结果 :观察 9.6± 1 3 .5(2 .7～ 2 8)个月 ,总有效率为 69.2 % ,动态心电图自身心律所占时间 ,治疗前为 7.6± 3 .2 (5 .5～ 1 2 .5)h/d ,治疗后为 3 .4± 2 .6(0～ 7.2 )h/d(P <0 .0 1 ) ;在随访期间有 2例促甲状腺素轻度升高 ,经调整剂量后恢复正常 ;1例皮肤搔痒 ,经减量后症状消失。结论 :胺碘酮与起搏器联合治疗病窦综合征并阵发性房颤是安全有效的