胺碘酮与普罗帕酮对于房颤转复与维持窦律的临床观察

目的观察胺碘酮与普罗帕酮对阵发性快速心房颤动的治疗效果。方法选择144例患者按就诊先后顺序随机分为2组。A组（74例）给予胺碘酮注射液负荷量150mg，静推10min注射完毕，观察10min，未恢复窦性心律或心率仍较快者以0．5～1mg／min维持静脉滴注；复律成功后给予胺碘酮片口服维持窦律。B组（70例）给予普罗帕酮注射液70mg，静推10min注射完毕，观察10min，未恢复窦性心律，重复应用，最大累积量为210mg；复律成功后给予普罗帕酮片口服维持窦律。结果胺碘酮治疗组复律成功率为78．38％，普罗帕酮治疗组复律成功率为51．43％，两组相比差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。治疗1、3．6、12个月后胺碘酮组左心房直径渐缩小，E、A及E／A渐提高，使E／A倒置得到恢复。结论胺碘酮和普罗帕酮对阵发性快速房颤均有较高的转复率。胺碘酮复律后窦律维持率高于普罗帕酮，胺碘酮对逆转心房心肌重构安全有效。     

胺碘酮与普罗帕酮转复阵发性房颤与维持窦律疗效评价

目的观察胺碘酮与普罗帕酮对阵发性房颤的疗效。方法选择40例阵发性房颤患者随机分为胺碘酮组（20例）与普罗帕酮组（20例）．分别给予胺碘酮与普罗帕酮,在静脉注射过程中．转为窦性心律后停用。结果普罗帕酮组房颤转复率为75％．胺碘酮组为40％,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。复律时间普罗帕酮组短于胺碘酮组（P〈0．01）。对血压的影响,两组无统计学意义。对Q—T间期的影响,胺碘酮组明显高于普罗帕酮组（P〈0．05）。复律后窦律的维持两组均呈下降趋势。但随访1年胺碘酮组对于窦律的维持率高于普罗帕酮组（P〈0．05）。结论普罗帕酮对阵发性房颤的转复率高于胺碘酮,而对于阵发性房颤复律后窦律维持胺碘酮高于普罗帕酮,但胺碘酮组对Q—T间期的影响较大。     

胺碘酮逆转阵发性特发性心房纤颤患者左心房重塑的研究

目的 探讨胺碘酮对阵发性特发性心房纤颤（房颤）的复律及逆转左房重塑的作用。方法将150例阵发性特发性房颤患者随机分为胺碘酮组50例、倍他乐克组50例、对照组50例。计算3组治疗后3、6、12个月的窦性心律维持率和治疗前、治疗后3、6、12个月的左心房内径（LAD）、E峰、A峰以及E／A比值。结果胺碘酮组治疗后3、6、12个月较治疗前左室舒张功能明显改善,左房内径明显缩小,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。倍他乐克组和对照组治疗后3、6、12个月左室舒张功能和左房内径与治疗前比较,差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。随访12个月后,胺碘酮组窦性心律的维持率为87．8％,倍他乐克组为58．14％,对照组无1例复律。3组间比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论胺碘酮维持阵发性特芡性房颤窦性心律的疗效和逆转左房重塑优于倍他乐克及对照组。     

氯沙坦联合胺碘酮治疗慢性心力衰竭伴心房颤动复律后的临床观察

目的观察氯沙坦和胺碘酮联用对慢性心力衰竭合并心房颤动复律后的心房颤动复发率及对左心房功能的影响。方法将60例慢性心力衰竭合并心房颤动（心房颤动持续时间≤1年）复律后病人随机分为治疗组（氯沙坦和胺碘酮合用）和对照组（胺碘酮单用）。观察两组口服药物6个月内心房颤动复律后的心房颤动复发率及对左心房功能的影响。结果6个月内治疗组2例退出，完成观察28例；对照组2例退出，完成观察28例。随访6个月，治疗组复发率为21．43％，对照组复发率为46．43％，两组比较有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；治疗组左心房内径缩小，心房压降低，治疗前后比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05），对照组治疗前后比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论氯沙坦与胺碘酮联用可明显减少慢洼心力衰竭合并心房颤动病人复律后心房颤动的复发，较单用胺碘酮有效，可能与氯沙坦逆转左心房扩大，降低左心房压力有关。     

缬沙坦和贝那普利预防老年房颤转复后复发的作用及其机制

目的：探讨小剂量胺碘酮联合缬沙坦或贝那普利预防老年持续性房颤转复后房颤复发的作用及其机制。方法：150例持续性房颤患者（持续超过7d）,经药物或电复律后随机分为三组：胺碘酮组（Ⅰ组）,胺碘酮＋缬沙坦组（Ⅱ组）,胺碘酮＋贝那普利组（Ⅲ组）,各50例;治疗随访时间为1年,比较三组治疗后房颤的复发情况以及治疗前,治疗后第2周、3月、6月、12月的左心房内径。结果：142例完成治疗,随访12月,与I组比较,Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组心房颤动复发率（37.50%比17.39%比18.75%）明显降低,左房内径[（38.11±1.24）mm比（34.11±1.37）mm比（34.13±1.36）mm]明显缩小（P均〈0.05）,而Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组间差异无显著性（P均〉0.05）。结论：胺碘酮分别与缬沙坦和贝那普利联合用于持续性房颤复律后预防房颤复发,较单用胺碘酮有效,长期服用可逆转左房扩大,抑制电重构,从而防止房颤复发。     

胺碘酮和普罗帕酮转复阵发性心房颤动的疗效观察

阵发性心房纤颤（房颤）是临床上常见的心律失常,发病急,变化快,反复发作可导致心动过速性心肌病,诱发心绞痛和心功能恶化,增加血栓栓塞的发生率。对血流动力学稳定的病人常首选药物复律,多用胺碘酮及普罗帕酮。本文通过临床对照,比较静脉注射胺碘酮和普罗帕酮转复阵发性心房颤动的有效性及安全性。     

胺碘酮联合氯沙坦预防心房颤动复律后复发

目的观察胺碘酮联合氯沙坦治疗阵发性和持续性心房颤动复律后维持窦性心律的疗效。方法80例具有转复窦性心律指征的阵发性和持续性心房颤动患者随机分为两组,单用胺碘酮治疗组（n=40）和胺碘酮＋氯沙坦治疗组（n=40）,12个月后停用胺碘酮,共随访18个月,观察药物对两组患者窦性心律的维持率及心房重构的影响。结果随访第12月和18月,窦性心律维持率在单用胺碘酮治疗组分别为45．9％和35．1％,在胺碘酮＋氯沙坦治疗组分别为79．5％和56．0％;胺碘酮＋氯沙坦组显著高于胺碘酮组（P均〈0．05）。胺碘酮＋氯沙坦组转变为永久性心房颤动患者（8例）显著低于单用胺碘酮治疗组（13例）,（P〈0．05）。左心房直径在单用胺碘酮组治疗前后有显著变化[治疗前（37．7±6．2）mm,治疗18月后时39．2±6．5mm）（P〈0．05）],而胺碘酮＋氯沙坦组无显著改变[治疗前（38．1±5．8）mm,治疗18月后（38．4±6．1）mm]。结论胺碘酮联合氯沙坦能提高心房颤动复律后维持窦性心律的疗效和防止心房结构重构。     

厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮对风湿性心脏病人瓣膜置换术后维持窦律的作用

目的评价厄贝沙坦和胺碘酮联用在风湿性心脏病持续性房颤患者复律后的窦律维持作用。方法风湿性心脏病瓣膜置换术后持续性房颤患者116例随机分为胺碘酮组(55例)和厄贝沙坦+胺碘酮组(61例)。两组均在治疗2周后行电复律术,转为窦性心律后继续分别服用。试验随访时间为18月。比较治疗后的窦性心律维持率和治疗前及治疗后6、12、18月左心房内径。结果胺碘酮组左心房内径在治疗12月后显著大于胺碘酮+厄贝沙坦组,P<0.05。厄贝沙坦+胺碘酮组窦律维持率高于胺碘酮组,在治疗12月时有显著差异。结论厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮在风湿性心脏病持续性房颤复律后维持窦性心律的疗效优于单用胺碘酮,并能延缓左房扩大,防止房颤复发。     

厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮对风湿性心脏病人瓣膜置换术后维持窦律的作用

目的 评价厄贝沙坦和胺碘酮联用在风湿性心脏病持续性房颤患者复律后的窦律维持作用.方法 风湿性心脏病瓣膜置换术后持续性房颤患者116例随机分为胺碘酮组(55例)和厄贝沙坦 胺碘酮组(61例).两组均在治疗2周后行电复律术,转为窦性心律后继续分别服用.试验随访时间为18月.比较治疗后的窦性心律维持率和治疗前及治疗后6、12、18月左心房内径. 结果胺碘酮组左心房内径在治疗12月后显著大于胺碘酮 厄贝沙坦组,P＜0.05.厄贝沙坦 胺碘酮组窦律维持率高于胺碘酮组,在治疗12月时有显著差异. 结论厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮在风湿性心脏病持续性房颤复律后维持窦性心律的疗效优于单用胺碘酮,并能延缓左房扩大,防止房颤复发.     

普罗帕酮顿服转复心房纤颤的临床疗效

目的:观察普罗帕酮顿服转复心房纤颤(简称房颤)的疗效。方法:42倒房颤病人被随机分为两组,治疗组给予普罗帕酮1次顿服450mg,对照给予胺碘酮150mg,10分钟内静脉推注,继之以1mg/min速度静脉滴注,维持8小时以上,复律成功后停用。结果:普罗帕酮组复律时间为2.4～5.5(平均3.6±1.8)小时,3小时内转复成功率59.1％,8小时内转复成功率72.7％。胺碘酮组复律时间为2.0～7.5(平均4.4±2.5)小时,3小时内转复成功率50.0％,8小时内转复成功率75.0％,两组对比,无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:普罗帕酮顿服转复心房纤颤方便、安全、快速、有效。     

Stunning of the left atrium after pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION: Stunning of the left atrium and atrial appendage is a well known but not fully clarified phenomenon observed during the cardioversion of atrial fibrillation regardless of the cardioversion method attempted. AIM: To assess the effects of propafenone and amiodarone on left atrium and left atrial appendage contractility. METHODS: Forty patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (20 females, 20 males), aged 60-83 (mean 72.0+/-10.1) years, were enrolled into the study. Half of these patients had sinus rhythm restored by the administration of oral propafenone (150-300 mg) and the remaining 20 patients were treated with intravenous amiodarone (150-450 mg). The control group consisted of 20 patients (10 females, 10 males) aged 52-78 (mean 61.2+/-9.3) years with sinus rhythm and no history of atrial fibrillation. All the patients had a transthoracic (TTE) and transesophageal (TEE) echocardiography performed while still in the AF, before drug administration and 1 hour after sinus rhythm restoration. RESULTS: All haemodynamic parameters of the left atrium measured after the sinus rhythm restoration were significantly worse when compared with the control group. Left atrial fractional shortening and total atrial fraction were significantly lower after propafenone than amiodarone (8.6+/-3.6% vs 11.7+/-5.5%, p<0.05; and LA FC 16.2+/-5.3% vs 23.3 (+/-6.3)% respectively, p<0.05). Doppler echocardiographic parameters included in the analysis such as mitral flow and superior left pulmonary vein flow were significantly lower in the sinus rhythm restoration group than in the control group. Among them the end-diastolic mitral flow velocity amplitude and flow velocity integral as well as the maximum pulmonary retrograde velocity were significantly worse in the group treated with propafenone than in patients receiving amiodarone. All the atrial appendage Doppler velocity parameters were significantly reduced after the sinus rhythm restoration in both groups. In the patients treated with propafenone, values of these parameters were significantly decreased compared with the patients receiving amiodarone. CONCLUSIONS: Successful pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation causes the left atrium and left atrial appendage contractility impairment similar to that observed with other methods of the sinus rhythm restoration. Following the AF cardioversion the level of left atrial stunning is higher in the patients treated with propafenone than in subjects receiving amiodarone.     

Comparison of intravenous flecainide, propafenone, and amiodarone for conversion of acute atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm

In a prospective, single-blind trial, we randomized 150 consecutive symptomatic patients with acute (< or = 48 hours' duration) atrial fibrillation to receive intravenous flecainide, propafenone, or amiodarone. Flecainide and propafenone were administered as a bolus dose of 2 mg/kg in 20 minutes. A second bolus dose of 1 mg/kg in 20 minutes was administered if conversion to sinus rhythm was not achieved after 8 hours. Amiodarone was administered as a bolus of 5 mg/kg in 20 minutes followed by a continuous infusion of 50 mg/hour. By the end of a 12-hour observation period, conversion to sinus rhythm was achieved in 45 patients (90%) in the flecainide group, 36 (72%) in the propafenone group, and 32 (64%) in the amiodarone group (p = 0.008 for the overall comparison, p = 0.002 for flecainide vs amiodarone, p = 0.022 for flecainide vs propafenone, and p = 0.39 for propafenone vs amiodarone). When compared with amiodarone, this higher reversion rate with flecainide was present from the first hour of the study period. However, only after administering the second bolus was there a significant difference between flecainide and propafenone. Median time to conversion to sinus rhythm was different among groups (p < 0.001), and it was lower in the flecainide (25 minutes; range 4 to 660) and propafenone (30 minutes; range 10 to 660) groups than in the amiodarone group (333 minutes; range 15 to 710; p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Flecainide, at the doses administered in this study, is more effective than propafenone and amiodarone for conversion of acute atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. Propafenone and amiodarone have similar conversion rates, although propafenone was faster in achieving the conversion to sinus rhythm.     

风心病慢性房颤心外膜标测心房有效不应期的对比研究

目的:研究风心病慢性房颤的电生理特征。方法:对29例风心病伴或不伴慢性房颤的病人在行二尖瓣置换术时,采用心外膜标测技术测定左、右心房各部位的有效不应期(AERP)及右房内和房间的传导时间。结果:风心病慢性房颤组左、右心房AERP比窦性心律明显缩短(P<0.05),左、右心房各部分的AERF,之间有明显差异(P< 0.01),即存在明显离散性;慢性房颤组的右房和房间传导时间在转复为窦性心律和缩短刺激右房高位问期时均显著长于正常对照组(P<0.05)。结论:风心病慢性房颤心房各部位AERP的差异反映了其AERP的离散性,而AERP 的离散性在房颤的诱发和维持过程中起着重要作用。     

心房颤动患者心房组织醛固酮和心房基质重构研究

目的 探讨心房颤动患者心房组织醛固酮水平和心房基质重构的相关关系。方法 入选行人工瓣膜置换术的风湿性心脏病患者25例,其中窦性心律者12例,慢性心房颤动者（房颤时程≥6月）13例。术前进行经胸超声心动图检查并留取有关资料,于手术时取左右心房侧壁组织,用放射免疫法测定心房组织醛固酮水平;用VG染色法对总胶原容量分数（CVF）半定量分析;RT-PCR检测Ⅰ型和Ⅲ型胶原mRNA表达改变。结果 与窦性心律者比较心房颤动组左房内径显著扩大（均P<0.01）;心房肌组织醛固酮［右房:(310.3±69.6) vs (154.5±35.8)pg/g,左房:(334.2±76.6) vs (166.5±38.6)pg/g,均P<0.01］、Ⅰ型胶原mRNA表达［右房:(1.95±0.22) vs (0.71±0.11),左房:(2.05±0.28) vs (0.74±0.16),均P<0.01］和CVF［右房:(13.0±1.9)％ vs (6.5±1.1)％,左房:(14.1±1.7)％ vs (6.7±1.2)％,均P<0.01］均明显增加;Ⅲ型胶原mRNA表达在房颤组和窦性心律组间无差异;上述指标在左、右心房之间无差异。Ⅰ型胶原mRNA与左心房直径（r＝0.885,P<0.01）、CVF和左心房直径（r＝0.845,P<0.01）均显著正相关;心房组织醛固酮水平与左心房内径（r＝0.814,P<0.01）和CVF（r＝0.885,P<0.01）均呈明显正相关。结论 心房组织醛固酮水平可能在心房颤动心房基质重构中起重要作用,并可能参与了心房颤动的发生和维持。     

血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂、胺碘酮联用对预防心房颤动的影响

目的观察厄贝沙坦联用胺碘酮在持续性心房颤动转复后维持窦性心律的作用及对左心房功能的影响。方法98例持续性心房颤动(持续超过7d)患者,药物或电复律后随机分为两组,Ⅰ组50例给予胺碘酮0.2g,1次/d;Ⅱ组48例给予厄贝沙坦150mg,1次/d,胺碘酮0.2g,1次/d;两组均连服6个月。分别于治疗后第1周、2周、1个月、2个月、4个月及6个月复查心电图或动态心电图,观察心房颤动复发情况;复律后次日及6个月后做超声心动图(UCG)检查,观察左心房功能变化。结果共87例完成治疗。随访6个月,心房颤动复发Ⅰ组为34.9%(15/43),Ⅱ组为13.6%(6/44),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),Ⅱ组复律后次日及治疗6个月后,超声测量左心房内径由(42±12)mm缩小为(34±11)mm,治疗前与治疗6个月后比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),而Ⅰ组上述指标比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论厄贝沙坦联用胺碘酮在持续性心房颤动转复后维持窦性心律,较单用胺碘酮更有效,长期服用厄贝沙坦可逆转左心房扩大,降低左心房压,有利于消除心房颤动复发的基础。     

心房颤动患者心房肌盐皮质激素受体表达研究

目的探讨心房颤动（房颤）患者心房肌组织盐皮质激素受体（MR）mRNA和蛋白表达的改变。方法入选进行人工心脏瓣膜置换术的风湿性心脏病患者25例,其中窦性心律者（窦律组）12例,永久性房颤者（房颤组）13例（房颤时间≥6个月）。上述患者均于术前进行经胸超声心动图检查并留取有关资料,于手术时取左、右心房侧壁组织,用实时荧光定量聚合酶链反应和Westernblot分别测定MRmRNA及其蛋白在心房肌组织中的表达情况,用免疫组织化学染色检测MR在心房肌细胞中的分布。结果与窦律组比较,房颤组左房内径显著扩大（P〈0．01）;心房肌组织MRmRNA及其蛋白表达均明显增加（P〈0．01或0．05）,但在左、右心房之间无论是在窦律或房颤时MRmRNA及其蛋白表达差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;免疫组织化学染色证明,MR主要分布在心房肌细胞胞质中,且在房颤时其染色密度明显增加。结论房颤时心房肌组织MR表达增加,醛固酮受体拮抗剂将可能对房颤发挥治疗作用。     

Amiodarone versus propafenone for conversion of chronic atrial fibrillation: results of a randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of amiodarone and propafenone in the conversion of chronic atrial fibrillation in a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study. BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of amiodarone and propafenone in the treatment of patients with chronic atrial fibrillation has not been adequately studied. METHODS: One hundred one patients (48 men, mean age 64 +/- 9 years) with atrial fibrillation lasting >3 weeks participated in the study. Thirty-four patients received amiodarone (300 mg intravenously over 1 h, followed by 20 mg/kg over the next 24 h plus 600 mg orally, in three doses, for 1 week, then 400 mg/day orally, for three weeks), 32 received propafenone (2 mg/kg intravenously over 15 min, followed by 10 mg/kg over 24 h and then 450 mg/day orally, for one month) and the remaining 35 served as control subjects. All patients received digoxin and anticoagulant treatment as indicated (International Normalized Ratio 2 to 3). RESULTS: Conversion to sinus rhythm was achieved in 16 (47.05%) patients who received amiodarone, in 13 (40.62%) who received propafenone and in none of the control subjects (p < 0.001 for both groups vs. control subjects). Those who converted had smaller atria than those who did not and atrial fibrillation of shorter duration in both the amiodarone and propafenone groups. Treatment was discontinued in one patient of the propafenone group because of significant QRS widening. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone and propafenone appear to be safe and equally effective in the termination of chronic atrial fibrillation. Left atrial diameter and arrhythmia duration are independent predictors of conversion.     

Conversion of recent onset paroxysmal atrial fibrillation to normal sinus rhythm: the effect of no treatment and high-dose amiodarone. A randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous conversion of recent onset paroxysmal atrial fibrillation to normal sinus rhythm occurs commonly and is not affected by low-dose amiodarone treatment. METHODS: In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 100 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation of recent onset (<48 h) we compared the effects of treatment with continuous intravenous amiodarone 125 mg per hour (total 3 g) and intravenous placebo. Patients in the placebo group who did not convert to normal sinus rhythm within 24 h were started on amiodarone therapy. RESULTS: Conversion to normal sinus rhythm occurred within 24 h in 32 of 50 patients (64%) in the placebo group, most of whom converted within 8 h. Lower conversion rates were observed in patients with hypertension, ischaemic heart disease or congestive heart failure and in patients with echocardiographic findings of left atrial diameter above 45 mm, ejection fraction below 45% or significant mitral regurgitation. However, in most patients these clinical or echocardiographic risk factors of decreases in conversion rate were not present. In such patients the spontaneous conversion rate was approximately 90%. The conversion rate during 24 h of treatment in the amiodarone group was 92% (P=0.0017, compared to the placebo group). In this group, the conversion rate was largely unaffected by baseline characteristics. Of the 18 patients who did not convert with placebo, 15 (85%) converted after being crossed over to amiodarone. All patients not responding to high-dose amiodarone were in chronic atrial fibrillation within 1 month. In patients still in atrial fibrillation after 8 h of treatment, the pulse rate decreased significantly more in the amiodarone as compared to the placebo group (83+/-15 vs 114+/-20 beats. min(-1), P=0.0014). CONCLUSION: The spontaneous conversion of recent onset paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is high and approaches 90% in specific clinical and echocardiographically defined subgroups. Intravenous high-dose amiodarone safely facilitates conversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. However, such treatment should be reserved for patients with unfavourable risk factor profiles, not converting during 8 h of observation or requiring rate control.     

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.