关于心房颤动的治疗

心房颤动 (房颤 )是临床最常见的持续性心律失常。对房颤患者的治疗有 3个主要目标 :控制心室率、维持窦性心律和预防血栓栓塞形成。本期“心房颤动研究专栏”(简称专栏 )的 1 6篇文章中 ,1 3篇关于房颤的治疗和预防复发。　　房颤的治疗是当前心律失常治疗中最薄弱的环节。对有持续性 (非自行终止的 )、阵发性房颤以及经选择的慢性房颤患者 ,转复为窦性心律是理想的终点。　　有少数药物 (例如奎尼丁、普鲁卡因酰胺、几个Ic类抗心律失常药物 ,以及胺碘酮和索他洛尔 ) ,能够转复并维持窦性心律 ,但总的说来 ,有效率仅60 %或略高 ,且受其它…     

心房颤动治疗的问题与前景

心房颤动 (房颤 )是一种临床极为常见且危害严重的心律失常 ,其治疗策略除病因治疗外主要包括两个方面 ,即针对房颤心律的治疗和预防血栓栓塞并发症。虽然现阶段房颤治疗的整体状况并不理想 ,存在诸多问题 ,然而近年该领域内的多项重要进展却已经使房颤的治疗在相当程度上出现了改观 ,甚至可能在不远的将来成为常规治疗的一部分。一、房颤治疗策略的转变与思考目前针对房颤心律的治疗策略包括控制心室率和转复并维持窦性心律。基于经验和推理 ,很容易认为转复并维持窦性心律的策略要优于控制心室率的策略 ;然而 ,近年发表的以AFFIRM (Atr…     

老年人心房颤动治疗概述

心房颤动（房颤）治疗的手段包括电或者药物复律和维持窦性心律，减少复发或者发作次数；控制心室率，抗凝药物预防血栓栓塞，消融或手术病灶根除和起搏治疗等。房颤患者应首先治疗原发病，发现、控制甚至消除诱发／维持房颤的危险因素，如积极治疗甲亢或者心衰。     

心房纤颤的治疗进展

心房纤颤（简称房颤）是最常见的一种心律失常。研究表明，房颤易导致致命性心脏事件，并引起左心功能减退，甚至死亡。现就其治疗处理作一概述。１　初发性房颤的治疗初发性房颤的治疗包括心室率的控制及窦性心律的转复，应根据患者起病急缓，病情严重程度、原发心脏疾患及心室率的快慢，确定治疗方案。据临床观察，４４％～７８％新发房颤可在２４小时内自行终止；随房颤持续时间的延长，转复窦性心律降低，＜３０天者占４２％，＞３０天者占１６％；用药物维持窦律的时间也缩短，房颤患者电复律后易在３～１０天内发生栓塞。因此在房颤开…     

心房颤动的律率治疗2011

<正>心房颤动(房颤)的律率治疗包括房颤的心室率控制,房颤的转复,转复后窦性心律的维持等三方面,涉及药物及非药物两大类的治疗。尽管律率治疗在某种程度上属于姑息性缓解症状的治疗,但仍然具有重要的临床价值。1控制心室率房颤伴快速心室率的室率控制包括药物和消融两方面的治疗。1.1急性期心室率控制     

胺碘酮治疗心力衰竭并发阵发性心房颤动31例

心房颤动(AF)是临床常见的心律失常,病人发生AF后,治疗上有两种选择:恢复窦律,维持窦律(节律控制);保留AF,控制心室率(室率控制).AF后可伴血流动力学障碍,生活质量下降,诱发心力衰竭同时栓塞发生率上升,而且部分AF病人即使无病因可查,经历一定时间后心房、心室也可扩大.窦性心律是生理性心律,AF以后转复窦性心律符合生理状态.因此,AF的治疗首先考虑能否恢复其窦律,尤其是心力衰竭并发阵发性房颤的病人.     

β受体阻滞剂转复慢性心力衰竭合并的持续性心房颤动三例

3例患者,年龄分别为69,62,73岁,均为冠心病、慢性心力衰竭伴持续性慢性心房颤动(简称房颤)。使用β受体阻滞剂治疗控制心室率,在随访过程中房颤转复为窦性心律,2例中途停用β受体阻滞剂后房颤复发,再加用后房颤又转复为窦性心律。随访1~3年均维持窦性心律。结果提示β受体阻滞剂在控制心力衰竭合并房颤时的心室率时有可能转复持续性房颤为窦性心律。     

胺碘酮治疗心房颤动再评价

心房颤动(atrial fibrillation，房颤)是临床最常见的一种持续性心律失常，它可引起血流动力学障碍、心力衰竭和中风等严重的并发症，致残率和病死率较高，是死亡的一个独立危险因素。因此，房颤一直是临床心律失常治疗关注的焦点之一。其治疗的主要目标是：(1)转复并维持窦性心律；(2)控制心室率；(3)抗凝，预防血栓栓塞并发症。目前，房颤的转复治疗主要有药物和非药物两种手段，尽管非药物手段在近年来有了很大进展，但是药物治疗仍是最常用的有效手段。本文着重讨论胺碘酮(amiodarone)在房颤治疗中的应用。     

胺碘酮在老年心房纤颤患者中的应用（附9例报告）

目的心房纤颤是老年人中一种常见的心律失常，及时控制心室率与转复维持窦性心律是治疗该病的两种主要治疗方式。通过临床观察，可达龙是维持窦性心律最有效的药物，同时对转复房颤，减慢心率作用明显。方法按胺碘酮（可达龙）药物常规治疗方法用药。结果对心房纤颤，特别是快速房颤、左室功能不全的老年患者，可达龙可列为一线治疗药物。结论本文结果表明可达龙在治疗心房纤颤中具有良好的疗效，且副作用较小，在治疗房颤中相对安全，在转复房颤并维持窦性心律方面是一种有效的抗心律失常药。     

治疗房颤的纯Ⅲ类新药：dofetilide

心房颤动(房颤)是临床最常见的心律失常,可引起血流动力学恶化,患者有发生脑血管栓塞的危险。尽快将房颤转复为窦性心律并长期维持是最理想的治疗,但目前房颤治疗的总体效果不尽人意。许多已被用于终止或预防房颤的药物,在高危猝死患者中的安全性、有效性及耐受性令人失望。目前认为新一代Ⅲ类抗心律失常药物是较有前途的,也是研究的热点。下面简要讨论治疗房颤的纯Ⅲ类新药     

The progressive nature of atrial fibrillation: a rationale for early restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, affecting young as well as elderly patients and presenting a major therapeutic challenge for clinical cardiologists. Recent research has elucidated the progressive nature of AF, including the structural and electrical remodelling that may become manifest if normal sinus rhythm is not restored, and the serious morbidities associated with long-term disease. The controversy over the merits of ventricular rate control vs. the restoration and maintenance of normal sinus rhythm in the treatment of AF has been explored in a number of large-scale, randomized clinical trials. The results of these trials suggest that whereas the two strategies may be equivalent for some patient populations, with both approaches requiring accompanying anticoagulation therapy, the restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm provide important haemodynamic as well as subjective benefits not afforded by rate control. Although early intervention to limit the progression of this arrhythmia is hindered by the limitations of existing anti-arrhythmic therapies, it is nevertheless a critical goal.     

Present concepts in management of atrial fibrillation: From drug therapy to ablation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) management requires knowledge of its pattern of presentation, underlying conditions, and decisions about restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm, control of the ventricular rate, and anti-thrombotic therapy. Maintenance of sinus rhythm is a desirable goal in AF patients because the prevention of recurrence may improve cardiac function, relieve symptoms and reduce the likelihood of adverse events. Anti-arrhythmic drug therapy is the first-line treatment for patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF based on current guidelines. However, currently used drugs have limited efficacy and cause cardiac and extracardiac toxicity. Thus, there is a continued need to develop new drugs, device and ablative approaches to rhythm management. Additionally, simpler and safer stroke prevention regimens are needed for AF patients on life-long anticoagulation, including occlusion of the left atrial appendage. The results of the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulant Therapy study are encouraging in these settings. Knowledge on the pathophysiology of AF is rapidly expanding and identification of focally localized triggers has led to the development of new treatment options for this arrhythmia. Conversely, the clinical decision whether to restore and maintain sinus rhythm or simply control the ventricular rate has remained a matter of intense debate. In the minority of patients in whom AF cannot be adequately managed by pharmacological therapy, the most appropriate type of non-pharmacological therapy must be selected on an individualized basis. Curative treatment of AF with catheter ablation is now a legitimate option for a large number of patients. The evolution of hybrid therapy, in which two or more different strategies are employed in the same patient, may be an effective approach to management of AF. In any case, planning a treatment regimen for AF should include evaluation of the risks inherent in the use of various drugs as well as more invasive strategies.     

Role of transthoracic echocardiography in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is a major clinical problem that is predicted to be encountered more frequently as the population ages. The clinical management of atrial fibrillation has become increasingly complex as new therapies and strategies have become available for ventricular rate control, conversion to sinus rhythm, maintenance of sinus rhythm, and prevention of thromboembolism. Clinical and transthoracic echocardiographic features are important in determining etiology and directing therapy for atrial fibrillation. Left atrial size, left ventricular wall thickness, and left ventricular function have independent predictive value for determining the risk of developing atrial fibrillation. Left atrial size may have predictive value in determining the success of cardioversion and maintaining sinus rhythm in selected clinical settings but has less value in the most frequently encountered group, patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, in whom the duration of atrial fibrillation is the most important feature. When selecting pharmacological agents to control ventricular rate, convert to sinus rhythm, and maintain normal sinus rhythm, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) allows noninvasive evaluation of left ventricular function and hence guides management. The combination of clinical and transthoracic echocardiographic features also allows risk stratification for thromboembolism and hemorrhagic complications in atrial fibrillation. High-risk clinical features for thromboembolism supported by epidemiological observations, results of randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses include rheumatic valvular heart disease, prior thromboembolism, congestive heart failure, hypertension, older (> 75 years old) women, and diabetes. Small series of cases also suggest those with hyperthyroidism and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy are at high risk. TTE plays a unique role in confirming or discovering high-risk features such as rheumatic valvular disease, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and decreased left ventricular function. Validation of the risk stratification scheme used in the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation-III trial is welcomed by clinicians who are faced daily with balancing the benefit and risks of anticoagulation to prevent thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation.     

Rate vs rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The 2 fundamental approaches to the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) are reestablishing and maintaining sinus rhythm (rhythm control) and controlling ventricular rate with atrioventricular node blocking agents (rate control). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing these strategies in patients with AF to add precision to the relative merits of both strategies on the risk of all-cause mortality and to evaluate the consistency of the results between trials. METHODS: We performed a literature search in MEDLINE (1966 to May 2003), the Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry (first quarter of 2003), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to May 2003). Eligible trials were randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacologic rhythm and rate control strategies as first-line therapy in patients with AF. RESULTS: Five trials were identified that included a total of 5,239 patients with persistent AF or AF that was considered likely to be recurrent. No significant difference was observed between the rate and the rhythm control groups regarding all-cause mortality, although a strong trend in favor of a rate control approach was observed (13.0% vs 14.6%; odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.02; P=.09). No heterogeneity was apparent between the trials (Q value=2.97; P=.56). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with persistent AF or with AF that is likely to be recurrent, a strategy of ventricular rate control, in combination with anticoagulation in appropriate patients, appears to be at least equivalent to a strategy of maintaining sinus rhythm by using currently available antiarrhythmic drugs in preventing clinical outcomes.     

Selection of Pacing Mode after Interruption of Atrioventricular Conduction for Atrial Fibrillation: Observations from the PA3 Clinical Trial

The optimal pacing mode for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) following AV junction ablation remains the subject of some debate. Recent clinical trials have not demonstrated a superior advantage of maintenance of sinus rhythm over the rate control approach. However, clinical trials in pacemaker populations have demonstrated that physiologic pacing reduces the probability of paroxysmal and persistent AF compared to ventricular pacing. In the second phase of the PA(3) study, patients were randomized to DDDR versus VDD pacing in a cross over study design. Of the 67 patients randomized, 42% developed permanent AF within one year following ablation. AF frequency and burden increases early following AV junction ablation suggesting that ventricular pacing even in an atrial synchronous mode promotes AF. Given the high probability of permanent AF developing early following ablation, VVIR pacing appears to be the appropriate pacing mode for symptomatic patients undergoing total AV junction ablation.     

Treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: Part II

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is often complicated by a life-threatening ventricular response, and emergency electrocardioversion and/or drug therapy to reduce the rapid ventricular rate may be necessary. However, patients with AF and Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome should not be given digoxin or calcium channel blockers. Elective direct current (DC) cardioversion has a higher success rate and a lower incidence of cardiac adverse effects than does medical cardioversion in converting AF to sinus rhythm. Unless transesophageal echocardiography has shown no thrombus in the left atrial appendage before cardioversion, oral warfarin should be given for 3 weeks before elective direct current or drug cardioversion of AF and continued for at least 4 weeks after maintenance of sinus rhythm. Many cardiologists prefer, especially in older patients, ventricular rate control plus warfarin rather than maintaining sinus rhythm with antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients with chronic or paroxysmal AF at high risk for stroke should be treated with long-term warfarin to achieve an international normalized ratio of 2.0-3.0. Patients with AF at low risk for stroke or with contraindications to warfarin should be treated with aspirin 325 mg daily. Management of atrial flutter is similar to management of AF.     

肥厚型心肌病心房颤动:决定因素、临床进程与处理

Atrial fibrillation(AF)is the most common sustained arrhythmia in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy(HCM),and represents an important complication in the clinical COUlee of the disease,with adverse consequences on functional status and outcome.Studies on community-based HCM patient populations have shown that AF is associated with long-term clinical deterioration,cardioembolic stroke and increaeed cardiovascular mortality due to heart failure and stroke.Moreover.acute onset of AF may cause severe hemodynamic impairment and represent a trigger of potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias.However,the consequences of AF on the long-term prognosis of HCM patients are not uniformly unfavorable,and may be compatible with an uneventful course,when properly managed.Management of AF in HCM is challenging,particularly when onset occurs at a young age.Both paroxysmal and permanent AF represent clear indications for oral anticoagulation.In moat patients,maintenance of sinus rhythm is highly desirable but made difficult by the limited long-term efficacy and potentially hazardous side effects of available pharmacological options.In selected patients with HCM and severely symptomatic AF,radiofrequency catheter ablation may represent an effective therapeutic ahemative,improving functional status,and reducing or postponing the need for antiarrhythmic drugs. In patients with persistent AF,in whom maintenance of sinus rhythm is not feasible.adequate ventricular rate control should be pursued aggressively by atrio-ventricular node blocking agents.     

Canadian Cardiovascular Society atrial fibrillation guidelines 2010: rate and rhythm management

The goals of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) arrhythmia management are to alleviate patient symptoms, improve patient quality of life, and minimize the morbidity associated with AF and AFL. Arrhythmia management usually commences with drugs to slow the ventricular rate. The addition of class I or class III antiarrhythmic drugs for restoration or maintenance of sinus rhythm is largely determined by patient symptoms and preferences. For rate control, treatment of persistent or permanent AF and AFL should aim for a resting heart rate of <100 beats per minute. Beta-blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers are the initial therapy for rate control of AF and AFL in most patients without a history of myocardial infarction or left ventricular dysfunction. Digoxin is not recommended as monotherapy for rate control in active patients. Digoxin and dronedarone may be used in combination with other agents to optimize rate control. The first-choice antiarrhythmic drug for maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with non structural heart disease can be any one of dronedarone, flecainide, propafenone, or sotalol. In patients with abnormal ventricular function but left ventricular ejection fraction >35%, dronedarone, sotalol, or amiodarone is recommended. In patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, amiodarone is the only drug usually recommended. Intermittent antiarrhythmic drug therapy ("pill in the pocket") may be considered in symptomatic patients with infrequent, longer-lasting episodes of AF or AFL as an alternative to daily antiarrhythmic therapy. Referral for ablation of AF may be considered for patients who remain symptomatic after adequate trials of antiarrhythmic drug therapy and in whom a rhythm control strategy remains desired.     

Pharmacologic approaches to rhythm versus rate control in atrial fibrillation--where are we now?

Until recently, contemporary drug treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) focused primarily on restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm, predicated on the belief that if AF is abolished then problems associated with AF would be abolished too. Recently completed clinical trials using drug therapy and comparing maintenance of sinus rhythm with control of ventricular rate have challenged this assumption, showing that simple control of ventricular rate with anticoagulation is an acceptable primary therapy, notably in older patients with persistent AF, minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic, and at increased risk for thromboembolic events. However, rate control and anticoagulation is not a panacea; existing trial results should not be interpreted to mean all patients should be treated with the rate control approach. Despite the limited efficacy and poor safety of current antiarrhythmic drugs, strategies for maintenance of sinus rhythm remain justified in many patients, such as those with first-episode AF, highly symptomatic patients, younger patients, and those with a history of congestive heart failure (CHF). Commonly used current and some investigational agents designated for “rhythm control” have enough pharmacologic overlap with rate control agents to be considered to have a dual mode of action, simultaneously addressing both rhythm and rate control. Furthermore, there is much interest in non-pharmacologic therapies, such as radiofrequency ablation, for rhythm control. The lack of appropriately designed and controlled trials at this time makes it difficult to determine the place of radiofrequency ablation and its impact on the rhythm versus rate question.