胺碘酮与缬沙坦治疗阵发性房颤67例

阵发性房颤是常见的心律失常之一，已证实有房颤的病人病死率高于无房颤病人的2倍，房颤发生血栓栓塞的比率也较其他病因高，常因发作、反复发作或逐渐变成永久性房颤而影响病人生活。最近几个临床试验证明，胺碘酮与血管紧张素Ⅱ受体阻断剂（ARB）和血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂（ACEI）合用可提高窦性心律的维持率，减少反复发作。我院从2005年1月以来，应用胺碘酮与缬沙坦合用治疗阵发性房颤取得满意疗效，现报道如下。     

胺碘酮联用缬沙坦治疗阵发性房颤46例临床观察

目的观察口服胺碘酮联合应用血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂(ARB)缬沙坦在阵发性心房颤动复律后维持窦性心律的疗效。方法将91例阵发性房颤患者随机分为胺碘酮组(Ⅰ组,n=45)与胺碘酮加缬沙坦组(Ⅱ组,n=46),疗效观察18个月。结果治疗6个月后窦性心律维持有统计学意义(P0.05),治疗12个月后两组左心房内径有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论胺碘酮与缬沙坦联合治疗阵发性房颤,维持窦性心律的疗效优于单用胺碘酮,并能延缓左心房扩大。     

胺碘酮治疗阵发性心房颤动57例疗效观察

目的探讨口服胺碘酮治疗阵发性心房颤动(房颤)的疗效和安全性。方法选取57例左房内径<4.5cm阵发性房颤患者为随访观察对象。给药方法:负荷量:第1周0.2g每天3次,第2周0.2 g每天2次,维持量0.1g 1次/d或0.2g隔日1次。结果57例治疗1、3、6个月、1年、2年总有效率分别为87.7%、86.0%、82.5%、71.9%、63.2%。不良反应7例,发生率12.3%。结论胺碘酮对阵发性房颤的疗效显著,长期小剂量维持疗效稳定安全。     

胺碘酮治疗非瓣膜病心房颤动的疗效和安全性

为观察胺碘酮治疗非瓣膜病心房颤动 (简称房颤 )的疗效与安全性 ,选择 6 8例为研究对象 ,男 38例 ,女 30例。其中阵发性房颤 (每周至少发作 2次 ,其中至少 1次持续 30min以上 ,或每日发作数次以上 ) 5 6例 ,持续性房颤(不超过 1年 ) 12例。除外T3、T4 、促甲状腺激素 (TSH)异常及胆囊疾病患者。用药方法 :2周内给负荷量 7g ,维持量0 .2g/d。疗效判定标准 :显效 :阵发性房颤完全不发作或偶有发作 ,持续性房颤转为并维持窦性心律或变为偶有发作的阵发房颤。有效 :阵发房颤发作减少 6 0 %以上 ,持续性房颤转为阵发性房颤。结果 :随访 3 .8± 1.3(0 .3～ 6 .8)年。显效 49例 (72 .1% ,95 %可信区间 6 3 %～ 85 % ) ,有效 10例 (14.7% )。总有效率 86 .8% (95 %可信区间 77%～93 % )。皮肤过敏 2例 (2 .9% ) ,T4 升高 4例 (5 .9% ) ,TSH降低 3例 (4.4% ) ,TSH升高 5例 (7.4% ) ,间质性肺病 1例(1.5 % ) ,恶心、腹胀 6例 (8.8% )、视力模糊 2例 (2 .9% )。结论 :胺碘酮治疗非瓣膜病房颤疗效高、相对安全 ,要注意早期发现和处理甲状腺和肺毒性作用。     

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。     

厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮治疗非瓣膜病阵发性心房颤动疗效观察

将211例非瓣膜病阵发性房颤患者随机为胺碘酮治疗组(A组)105例和厄贝沙坦 胺碘酮治疗组(B组)106例,治疗随访3 a,研究的-级终点为房颤复发.比较两组治疗后的窦性心律维持率以及治疗前、治疗后12、24和36个月的左心房内径.结果治疗12个月后,A组左心房内径为(37.01±1.56)mm,明显大于B组的(35.32±1.62)mm,P<0.05.实验终点时,A组的窦性心律维持率为59.05%,明显低于B组的83.52%(P<0.05).认为厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮治疗非瓣膜病阵发性房颤在维持窦性心律和抑制左心房扩大方面疗效较好.     

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。     

胺碘酮和毛花甙C转复阵发性心房颤动及心房扑动的临床疗效

目的比较胺碘酮和毛花甙C对阵发性心房颤动(房颤)及心房扑动(房扑)的治疗效果差异。方法选取在该院住院治疗的病发阵发性房颤及房扑的患者72例,随机分为胺碘酮治疗组和毛花甙C治疗组。两组患者分别给予胺碘酮静脉滴注治疗和毛花甙C静脉滴注治疗,比较两组患者给药后的治疗效果及副作用发生情况。结果胺碘酮组复律成功26例(72.2%),毛花甙C治疗组16例(44.4%)。两组比较胺碘酮的治疗有效率较毛花甙C明显偏高(P<0.05)。两组患者给药后心室率均出现明显下降,但两组治疗后差异不显著(P>0.05)。毛花甙C治疗组的不良反应总发生率为25%,较胺碘酮组(8.3%)明显偏高(P<0.05)。结论胺碘酮对治疗阵发性房颤及房扑的成功率高,转复律疗效高于毛花甙C,且治疗安全,副作用少。可作为阵发性房颤和房扑患者复律治疗的一线药物。     

胺碘酮联合缬沙坦治疗阵发性房颤疗效观察

将89例阵发性房颤患者随机分成三组,分别给予胺碘酮、缬沙坦、胺碘酮加缬沙坦治疗,观察治疗3、6个月房颤复发率、发作次数、收缩压、舒张压、左房直径的变化.发现治疗3、6个月后,单用胺碘酮治疗组阵发性房颤复发率减少,联合治疗组复发率减少更明显(P＜0.05),单用缬沙坦组变化不明显.认为胺碘酮加缬沙坦可降低阵发性房颤的复发率.     

替米沙坦联合胺碘酮治疗冠心病并发阵发性房颤

目的 观察替米沙坦联合胺碘酮治疗冠心病并发阵发性心房颤动(房颤)患者的窦性心律(窦律)维持作用及复发因素.方法 80例冠心病并发阵发性房颤患者随机分为两组,治疗组(替米沙坦十胺碘酮组)40例,对照组(胺碘酮组)40例.治疗12个月,观察两组患者治疗后的窦律维持率和治疗前后的左心房内径(LAD).结果 治疗12个月后,治疗组窦律维持率高于对照组(72.5%、50.0%,P＜0.05),治疗组左心房内径小于对照组,分别为(37.2士4.2)mm和(39.3±3.9)mm(P＜0.05).结论 替米沙坦联合胺碘酮治疗冠心病并发阵发性房颤,能延缓患者左心房的扩大,预防房颤复发.     

胺碘酮与氯沙坦、培哚普利联合治疗阵发性心房颤动的前瞻、随机开放研究

目的 评价氯沙坦和培哚普利与小剂量胺碘酮联合治疗心功能正常的阵发性心房颤动（房颤）维持窦性心律的长期疗效.方法 将181例阵发性房颤随机分为胺碘酮组（Ⅰ组,n=61）、胺碘酮＋氯沙坦组（Ⅱ组,n=59）,胺碘酮＋培哚普利组（Ⅲ组,n=61）,治疗随访时间为2年,研究的一级终点为房颤复发.比较三个组治疗后的窦性心律维持率以及治疗前、治疗后6、12、18和24个月的左心房内径.结果 治疗12个月后,Ⅰ组左心房内径大于Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组（P＜0.05）.治疗7个月后,Ⅰ组窦性心律的维持率明显低于Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组（P＜0.05）,而Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组间差异无统计学意义.试验终点时,Ⅰ组的窦性心律维持率为59.01%,Ⅱ组为83.05%,Ⅲ组为80.33%（P＜0.05）.Ⅲ组刺激性干咳的发生率明显高于Ⅰ组和Ⅱ组,而持续性窦性心动过缓和QT间期≥0.5 s的发生率三组间差异无统计学意义.结论 胺碘酮分别与氯沙坦和培哚普利联合治疗阵发性房颤,维持窦性心律的疗效间差异无统计学意义,但优于单用胺碘酮,并能抑制左心房的扩大.     

Effects of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition or Angiotensin Receptor Blockade in Dialysis Patients: A Nationwide Data Survey and Propensity Analysis

Long-term benefit of using a renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blocker such as an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) for patients already receiving dialysis remains undetermined. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of ACEI or ARB use in dialysis patients. We performed a population-based cohort study with time-to-event analyses to estimate the relation between the use of ACEI/ARB and their outcomes. We used a nationwide database (Registry for Catastrophic Illnesses) for Taiwan, which has data from 1995 to 2008 nearly of all patients who received dialysis therapy. The records of all dialysis patients aged ≥18 with no evidence of cardiovascular (CV) events in 1997 and 1998 (133,564 patients) were examined. Users (n = 50,961) and nonusers (n = 59,913) of an ACEI/ARB were derived. We then used propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality and CV events in users and nonusers of an ACRI/ARB. The 15,182 patients, who used an ACEI/ARB, and the 15,182 nonusers had comparable baseline characteristics during the 14 years of follow-up. The mortality was significantly greater in patients who did not use an ACEI/ARB (HR = 0.90, 95% confidence interval = 0.86–0.93). Subgroup analysis of 3 tertiles of patients who used different total amounts of ACEI/ARB during the study period indicated that CV events were more common in patients who used an ACEI/ARB for a short duration (tertile 1: HR = 1.63), but less common in those who used an ACEI/ARB for long durations (tertile 2: HR = 1.05; tertile 3: HR = 0.94; trend for declining HR from tertile 1 to 3: P < 0.001). The mortality benefit provided by use of an ACEI/ARB was consistent across most patient subgroups, as was the benefit of ARB monotherapy rather than ACEI monotherapy. Independent of traditional risk factors, overall mortality was significantly lower in dialysis patients who used an ACEI/ARB. In addition, subjects who used an ACEI/ARB for longer durations were significantly less likely to experience CV events.     

Successful treatment of severe hypertension with the combination of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin II receptor blocker.

Three patients who suffered from congestive heart failure caused by severe hypertension were treated with a combination therapy consisting of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). Before initiation of treatment, all three patients showed elevations of serum creatinine concentration (sCr), plasma renin activity (PRA), and plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC), which indicated insufficient blood supply to the kidney during exacerbation of hypertension. All three cases successfully recovered from hypertensive heart failure with the combination therapy. sCr gradually decreased during continuation of the therapy, although one patient showed an increase in sCr at an early stage of the combination therapy. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) by the combination of ACEI and ARB was well tolerated in patients with severe hypertension with renal damage and showed a beneficial effect in protecting against further renal damage. This result suggests that combination therapy with ACEI and ARB should be considered as a candidate treatment in cases of severe hypertension.     

Anemia due to coadministration of renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors and PPARγ agonists in uncomplicated diabetic patients

Therapy with either angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) or thiazolidinediones (TZD) is associated with dose-dependent decrements in hematocrit and hemoglobin levels. We aimed to investigate the impact of the coadministration of TZD and ACEI/ARB on hematocrit and hemoglobin values in uncomplicated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and normal serum creatinine.Data from patients with type 2 diabetes currently followed, were reviewed and patients treated with ACEI/ARB and/or TZD were identified. For the purpose of this study the following 4 groups of 30 stable non-anemic diabetic patients each matched for age, gender, and BMI were formed. Group ACEI/ARB included patients on ACEI/ARB without TZD, group TZD included patients on TZD and antihypertensive agents other than ACEI/ARB, group ACEI/ARB/TZD consisted of patients on combined therapy with ACEI/ARB and TZD and the control group C included patients never exposed to ACEI/ARB or TZD. Clinical and laboratory data were collected prior to initiation of treatment and after 6 months.Neither hematocrit nor hemoglobin showed any significant change from baseline at the end of the study in group C. In both group ACEI/ARB and group TZD a small, but statistically significant reduction in hematocrit (~ 1% point) and hemoglobin levels (~ 0.3 g/dl) was seen. A greater statistically and clinically important reduction in hematocrit (~ 3% points) and hemoglobin (~ 1 g/dl) levels was observed in group ACEI/ARB/TZD. Furthermore, incident anemia at the end reached 7% in group TZD and 23% in group ACEI/ARB/TZD.Coadministration of RAS inhibitors and PPAR-γ agonists should be considered in the differential diagnosis of hematocrit lowering and anemia in uncomplicated type 2 diabetic patients with normal serum creatinine. Further studies are required to clarify the mechanism(s), the cardiovascular consequences and the cost utility of anemia workup in such patients.     

Treatment with angiotensin II receptor blockers is associated with prolonged relapse-free survival,lower relapse rate,and corticosteroid-sparing effect in patients with giant cell arteritis

ObjectiveTo determine whether concomitant treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is associated with changes in the outcome of patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA).MethodsA study cohort of 106 patients with biopsy-proven GCA was longitudinally followed up for 7.8 ± 3.3 years. Patients were stratified according to their treatment with ACEI, ARB, or no ACEI/ARB. Time to first relapse, number of flares, time to achieve a stable prednisone dose <10 mg/day and <5 mg/day with no relapses, time required to completely discontinue prednisone, cumulative dose of prednisone received during the first year, and concentrations of acute-phase reactants at pre-defined time points (baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months) were compared among the 3 groups. Cox proportional hazards models were performed to adjust for potential confounders.ResultsPatients receiving ARB presented a significantly longer relapse-free survival than patients treated with ACEI or patients not receiving ACEI/ARB (p = 0.02). The adjusted hazard ratio for relapses in patients treated with ARB was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.12–0.81, p = 0.017). In addition, patients who received ARB achieved a prednisone maintenance dose <10 mg/day faster than all other patients (p = 0.0002). No significant differences were observed among groups in acute-phase reactant levels during follow-up. However, patients not receiving ACEI/ARB had significantly higher C-reactive protein and haptoglobin concentrations than those receiving ACEI or ARB at various time points.ConclusionsAddition of ARB to glucocorticoids is associated with lower relapse rate and more prolonged disease-free survival in patients with GCA.     

High-risk Diabetic Patients in Medicare Part D Programs: Are They Getting the Recommended ACEI/ARB Therapy?

BACKGROUND

Diabetes patients with hypertension and/or renal disease are at an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Clinical evidence suggests that the use of ACEI/ARB for these patients improves patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To describe ACEI/ARB utilization among high-risk patients with diabetes and to identify patient characteristics that predict suboptimal utilization of ACEI/ARB.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

PATIENTS

Diabetic patients with coexisting hypertension and/or renal disease with continuous Medicare coverage from October 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 in six states (Alabama, California, Florida, Mississippi, New York, and Ohio).

INTERVENTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS

Any ACEI/ARB use during the first 6 months of 2006.

RESULTS

A total of 1,250,466 Medicare Part D enrollees met our inclusion criteria. ACEI/ARB utilization rates were 63%, 58.3%, and 43.1% among diabetic patients with hypertension and renal disease, hypertension without renal disease, and renal involvement without hypertension, respectively. After adjusting for all other characteristics studied, patients in the hypertension only (OR 0.83; 95% CI: 0.82–0.84) and renal disease only (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.46–0.50) risk groups were less likely to use ACEI/ARB compared to diabetes patients with both hypertension and renal disease. Several demographics, including male gender, age older than 65, and white race, were all predictors of suboptimal ACEI/ARB use. Results from state-specific analyses are consistent with those for all six states.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort, less than 60% of high-risk patients with diabetes were receiving the recommended ACEI/ARB therapy. Several patient demographic and clinical characteristics are strongly associated with suboptimal ACEI/ARB use.     

前瞻队列研究节段性肺静脉电隔离与胺碘酮及胺碘酮联合氯沙坦治疗孤立性阵发性心房颤动

目的比较节段性肺静脉电隔离和胺碘酮及胺碘酮联合氯沙坦对孤立性阵发性心房颤动（房颤）患者维持窦性心律（窦律）的疗效。方法选择154例孤立性阵发性房颤患者分为节段性肺静脉电隔离治疗组（Ⅰ组,n=51）、胺碘酮组（Ⅱ组,n=52）、胺碘酮＋氯沙坦组（Ⅲ组,n=51）。治疗随访时间为1年,研究的一级终点为12导联心电图和24小时Hoher证实的持续30秒以上的症状性房性快速性心律失常复发。结果在12个月的随访期间,Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ组分别有11例（21．6％）、24例（46．2％）、12例（23．5％）到达了一级终点（P〈0．05）。Kaplan—Meier生存分析显示,Ⅰ组和Ⅲ组对窦律维持率均高于Ⅱ组（P=0．009和0．018,log—rank检验）;Ⅰ组和Ⅲ组对窦律的维持率差异无统计学意义（P：0．814）。同Ⅱ组相比,Ⅲ组降低了54％的房颤复发风险（RR=0．46,95％可信区间0．225～0．953,P：0．036）,Ⅰ组降低了59％的房颤复发风险（RR=0．41,95％可信区间0．200～0．848,P：0．016）。三组间不良事件的发生率分别为3．9％、9．6％和7．8％,差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论节段性肺静脉电隔离和胺碘酮联合氯沙坦对孤立性阵发性房颤患者窦律的维持疗效相当,均明显优于单用胺碘酮治疗。     

Relationship between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers prescribing and delirium in the ICU-A secondary analysis

Background

Studies suggest Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARB) may slow the decline of memory function in individuals with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease by regulating migroglial activation and oxidative stress within the brain's reticular activating system. Therefore, we evaluated the relationship between delirium prevalence and being prescribed ACEI and ARB in participants admitted to the intensive care units (ICU).

Methods

A secondary analysis of data from two parallel pragmatic randomized controlled trials was performed. ACEI and ARB exposure was defined as being prescribed an ACEI or an ARB within six months prior to the ICU admission. The primary endpoint was the first positive delirium assessment based on Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) for up to thirty days.

Results

A total of 4791 patients admitted to the medical, surgical, and progressive ICU and screened for eligibility for the parent studies between February 2009 and January 2015 from two level 1 trauma and one safety net hospital in a large urban academic health system were included. Delirium rates in the ICU were not significantly different among participants with no exposure to ACEI/ARB (12.6%), or exposure to ACEI (14.4%), ARB (11.8%), or ACEI and ARB in combination (15.4%) in six months prior to the ICU admission. Exposure to ACEI (OR = 0.97[0.77, 1.22]), ARB (OR = 0.70 [0.47, 1.05]), or both (OR = 0.97 [0.33, 2.89]) in six months prior to ICU admission was not significantly associated with odds of delirium during the ICU admission after adjusting for age, gender, race, co-morbidities, and insurance status.

Conclusions

While the impact of ACEI and ARB exposure prior to the ICU admission was not associated with the prevalence of delirium in this study, further research is needed to fully understand the impact of antihypertensive medications on delirium.     

Intravenous amiodarone is safe and seems to be effective in termination of paroxysmal supraventricular tachyarrhythmias

Background: Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) leading to hemodynamic compromise are among the most common reasons for admission to the coronary care unit (CCU) and need prompt and efficient therapy. Direct current cardioversion is the therapy of choice, but if found contraindicated or unavailable some antiarrhythmie agents are usually given to restore sinus rhythm. Many of these drugs have obvious limitations, especially in patients with acute myocardial infarction and/or heart failure. Hypothesis: The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous amiodarone in the acute termination of PAF or PSVT refractory to other antiarrhythmie agents in a large group of patients consecutively admitted to our CCU. Methods: In the present study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of amiodarone given intravenously in 142 consecutive patients with PAF or PSVT lasting < 24 h. In 37% of patients no evidence of underlying heart disease which may have caused arrhythmias were defined. A median of two other antiarrhythmic agents given prior to the first amiodarone injection had been ineffective. Results: Sinus rhythm was restored in 91 patients (64%) (65% in the PAF group and 61% in the PSVT group). The mean time to rhythm conversion was 5.5 ± 6.1 h for patients with PAF and 1.2 ± 1.2 h for patients with PSVT. The mean dose of amiodarone administered up to conversion was 340 ± 220 mg for PAF and 220 ± 105 mg for PSVT. Except for transient first-degree atrioventricular block in two patients, no adverse effects possibly related to amiodarone were observed (including proarrhythmia and incidence or aggravation of heart failure symptoms). Conclusion: Amiodarone given intravenously for acute termination of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias is completely safe and seems effective. The results of this study, which is the largest ever made, indicate a need of randomized, controlled trials for the ultimate assessment of the efficacy of amiodarone in this clinical setting.