胺碘酮对恶性室性心律失常QT离散度的影响

目的观察胺碘酮对恶性室性心律失常QT离散度的影响。方法观察60例恶性室性心律失常患者服用胺碘酮治疗前后校正的QT离散度（QTcd）的变化。结果应用胺碘酮治疗恶性室性心律失常（LownⅢ级以上）后与治疗前相比较，显著减少（P〈0．05），QTcd亦有显著性下降（P〈0．01），并未发现该药具有严重毒副作用。结论胺碘酮治疗恶性室性心律失常安全有效，能缩小QT离散度，从而减少室颤的发生，可降低恶性严重室性心律失常和心源性猝死。     

参松养心胶囊联合胺碘酮治疗充血性心力衰竭伴室性心律失常的疗效及安全性观察

目的观察参松养心胶囊联合胺碘酮治疗慢性充血性心力衰竭(CHF)伴室性心律失常(VA)的疗效及安全性。方法选择充血性心力衰竭合并室性心律失常患者168例,随机分为A组(52例)、B组(56例)及C组(60例)。A组给予参松养心胶囊口服,B组给予胺碘酮口服,C组给予参松养心胶囊与胺碘酮口服。观察用药4周后3组的临床疗效与安全性。结果治疗4周后总有效率A组76%,B组78%,C组86%,C组显著高于A组和B组(P<0.05)。结论参松养心胶囊治疗慢性心力衰竭室性心律失常与盐酸胺碘酮疗效相当,且副反应小;参松养心胶囊与胺碘酮联用治疗CHF室性心律失常的疗效优于单用胺碘酮或单用参松养心胶囊的疗效,并可明显减少胺碘酮的用量。     

复方罗布麻片联合胺碘酮治疗冠心病室性心律失常的疗效观察

目的分析复方罗布麻片联合胺碘酮治疗冠心病室性心律失常的疗效。方法选择我院2013年6月~2014年6月收治的冠心病室性心律失常患者126例作为研究对象,将其随机分为A组与B组,各63例。B组单独应用胺碘酮治疗,A组应用复方罗布麻片联合胺碘酮治疗。对比两组患者疗效、室性早搏数、短阵室速数以及不良反应等指标。结果 A组总有效率为95.2%,显著高于B组的74.6%;A组室性早搏数与短阵室速数均显著低于B组。差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组均未发生严重不良反应。结论应用复方罗布麻片联合胺碘酮治疗冠心病室性心律失常,能够显著提高疗效,且安全可靠,值得临床推广应用。     

植入型心律转复除颤器对缺血性心肌病患者病死率的影响

目的:缺血性心肌病伴左心室功能不全[射血分数(EF)<40%]和恶性室性心律失常的患者预后不良,研究比较植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)和传统药物治疗对这组患者病死率的影响。方法:回顾性分析2002年1月至2006年3月明确诊断为缺血性心肌病伴左心室功能不全(EF<40%)及恶性室性心律失常的患者152例,其中男性97例,女性55例,平均年龄(58.2±23.4)岁,其中ICD植入患者15例(A组),传统药物治疗患者137例(B组),随访(14±3)个月,主要终点事件为任何原因的死亡。结果:A组患者只有1例(6.7%)死亡,但对其ICD事件进行回顾性分析证实死亡为非恶性室性心律失常所致。B组患者死亡19例(13.9%),其中6例患者死于恶性室性心律失常。2组患者的病死率差异无显著性(P>0.05)。但对ICD植入患者的程控发现ICD共成功纠正心室颤动(VF)发作21次,持续性室速(VT)发作65次。结论:本研究提示ICD可降低缺血性心肌病患者恶性室性心律失常导致的猝死。     

植入型心律转复除颤器治疗恶性室性心律失常的疗效评价

目的评价单中心40例植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)治疗恶性室性心律失常的疗效及安全性。方法40例恶性室性心律失常包括室性心动过速(室速)或心室颤动(室颤)患者接受ICD治疗,男性35例,女性5例,平均年龄(49±15)岁,成功随访35例,应用体外程控仪获得ICD储存资料并结合临床随访资料进行分析。结果40例患者均成功植入ICD;35例患者平均随访25个月,其中26例患者共记录室速和室颤事件763阵,ICD成功除颤224阵(成功率99．1％),抗心动过速起搏1次成功终止室速375阵(成功率71．8％),低能量同步转复22阵(成功率100％);2例患者因窦性心动过速和心房颤动伴快速心室反应发生误放电4次。术后大多数患者联合应用抗心律失常药物。至随访期末,死亡4例,3例死于顽固性心力衰竭,1例死于肺栓塞。结论ICD联合应用抗心律失常药物能有效治疗恶性室性心律失常,预防心脏性猝死。     

胺碘酮治疗老年急性心肌梗死后室性心律失常56例

急性心肌梗死(AMI)是指由于持久严重的心肌缺血而导致的部分心肌急性坏死,常伴有室性心律失常,可引起血流动力学障碍、心功能不全加重等,甚至会发生致命性心律失常及心源性猝死[1].早期识别、对症治疗显得尤为重要.《胺碘酮抗心律失常治疗应用指南》明确指出,对于AMI伴室性心律失常,首选药物为静脉注射胺碘酮[2].本文对老年AMI后室性心律失常患者,采用静脉滴注胺碘酮与口服给药的方案,并与同期采用利多卡因进行对比.     

胺碘酮治疗老年充血性心力衰竭伴室性心律失常106例临床分析

目的 探讨胺碘酮治疗老年性充血性心力衰竭（CHF）的效果与安全性。方法将106例各种原因所致的伴发室性心律失常的CHF患者按入院顺序随机分为治疗组及对照组。两组抗CHF基础治疗相同,治疗组加用胺碘酮片0．2g,3次／d,1周;再0．2g,2次／d,1周后以0．1～0．2g1次／d至观察终点,随访时间为24个月。分析两组在抗室性心律失常、左室射血分数、心脏性猝死,心力衰竭再住院率、药物不良反应等方面的情况。结果治疗组53例使用小剂量胺碘酮治疗。可显著增加抗心律失常有效率,改善左室射血分数,减少心脏性猝死及心力衰竭再住院率。药物致心律失常作用及严重不良反应少。结论老年CHF伴发室性心律失常使用小剂量胺碘酮治疗疗效肯定,毒副作用少,安全性较高,适合基层推广应用。     

急诊应用胺碘酮治疗快速性心律失常的临床分析

目的分析急诊患者发生快速性心律失常后采用胺碘酮治疗的临床效果和安全性。方法将180例快速性心律失常患者依据心律失常类型分为140例室上性组和40例室性组,将室上性组和室性组依据治疗方法分为观察组(室上性A组、室性A组)和对照组(室上性B组、室性B组),观察组采用胺碘酮治疗,对照组采用毛花苷C和利多卡因治疗。对不同组治疗效果和安全性进行对比和分析。结果治疗有效率,观察组高于对照组,比较具有统计学差异(P0.05),不良反应率,观察组低于对照组(P0.05)。结论快速性心律失常患者采用胺碘酮的治疗效果优于毛花苷C和利多卡因,患者不良反应少,使用安全性高,值得进行推广。     

植入心脏电复律除颤器后患者的生存率

植入心脏电复律除颤器(implanted car-dioverter defibrillator,ICD)对可致命的复发性室性心律失常引起的心源性猝死有预防作用。作者采用回顾性对照研究,评价了ICD对病人生存率的影响。方法选择接受ICD治疗的60例患者为研究组。根据年龄、左室射血分数、心律失常的表现、心脏的基础疾病和药物治疗情况等5个变量,将每例ICD患者匹配2例抗心律失常药     

经静脉植入型心律转复除颤器的临床应用

目的：对器质眭心脏病的恶性心律失常，植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)为重要治疗手段，作者报道6例经静脉植入型心律转复除颤器的临床病例．方法：6例器质性心脏病(陈旧性心肌梗塞3例，致心律失常性右室发育不良3例)伴室性心动过速(室速)或心室颤动(室颤)，年龄30-68岁，经药物治疗效果不佳或不能耐受药物副作用，经静脉植入ICD。结果：随访中1例患者停服胺碘酮后室速频率增快，超过设置的室速频率窗口而启动20J电转复为窦性心律．随后程控调整室速窗口；1例术后未及时设置杭心动过速起博(ATP)程序，室速发作由15J电击转复为窦性心律，补设ATP后来再发生上述情况；1例术后1．5月发生室速，ATP及5次电击均未能转复窦性心律，再次入院程控调整ATP后来再发生上述表现。结论：ICD对器质性心脏病恶性室性心律失常转复效果肯定，需要合理设置各项参数，术后应继续服用小剂量抗心律失常药物，减少放电次数，节省电能。     

Determinants of survival in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmia associated with coronary artery disease

The long-term survival data in patients with coronary artery disease and a history of malignant ventricular arrhythmia, defined as noninfarction ventricular fibrillation (VF) or hemodynamically compromising ventricular tachycardia (VT) followed for up to 9 years, were analyzed. In this group of 161 patients there was a total of 57 deaths, of which 35 (63%) were sudden. Life-table analysis demonstrated a 10% sudden death rate for all patients in the first year and a 7% annual rate in the subsequent 4 years. In patients managed noninvasively, the overall mortality rate was 27% over 9 years, or 3% per year. Suppression of ventricular tachycardia on both ambulatory monitoring and exercise testing was associated with improved survival. In patients evaluated by electrophysiologic testing the sudden death rate was 1.4% per year over an average of 5 years. This survival rate was not different compared with the noninvasive group (p = 0.09). Measures of left ventricular dysfunction and the frequency of ventricular arrhythmia before and after drug therapy were associated with a risk of sudden cardiac death by univariate analysis. Multivariate regression analysis identified 4 variables as independent predictors of sudden cardiac death: rales (p = 0.009), the number of runs of VT during exercise testing while receiving antiarrhythmic drug therapy (p = 0.0003), a history of congestive heart failure (p = 0.0009) and the number of premature beats on Holter monitoring (p = 0.01). These findings support the concept that suppression of repetitive arrhythmia on Holter monitor and exercise testing is a marker for improved survival among patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are preferable to drugs as primary therapy in sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias

The choice of initial therapy for patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias is examined based on clinical efficacy, patient safety, and cost. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy can be administered using a guided or empiric approach. Guided type-1 antiarrhythmic drug therapy has been associated with high arrhythmia recurrence rates (>40% at 1 year) and moderate sudden death rates (10% at 1 year). Sotalol is associated with lower arrhythmia recurrence rates (20% at 1 year) that increase to 50% at 4 years. β-blocking agents have a limited role as stand-alone therapy in this condition. Empiric amiodarone therapy has sudden death-free survival rates of 82% at 2 years but has significantly poorer results in patients with ejection fractions ≤40%. In contrast, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has reported sudden death recurrence rates of 1% to 2% per year, with a cumulative index of 10% at 5 years. Total survival rate of ICD recipients ranges from 85% to 92% at 2 years. In patients with good left ventricular function, it approaches 90% at 5 years, whereas it is between 50% to 60% in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Data from device memory indicate an absolute reduction in mortality rates with ICD intervention. Comparison of drug and device therapy has been performed in retrospective and prospective studies. Improved survival with device therapy is noted, particularly in patients with ejection fractions ≤35% to 40% in retrospective studies. The results of two small prospective randomized trials also show significant survival advantage as compared with those for type-1C drugs and a mixed group of antiarrhythmic drugs. An initial strategy of ICD therapy was shown to be superior in the Netherlands Cooperative Study. The 30-day perioperative mortality rate of ICD therapy of 0.8% contrasts favorably with a 13% mortality rate in the ESVEM trial with antiarrhythmic drugs and a 3.5% mortality rate in the CASCADE study. Economic analyses show that drug therapy and device therapy are both within the range of other current cardiovascular therapies. An improving economic profile for device therapy has been observed with nonthoracotomy and pectoral implantation and direct use of ICD therapy because primary therapy shortens hospital stay and reduces costs. Based on available data, ICD therapy is preferable as initial therapy in patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias.     

室性心律失常的治疗进展

Ventricular arrhythmias(VA)include premature ventricular contractions(PVC),ventricular tachycardia(VT),ventricular flutter or defibrillation(VFL/VF).Although commonly related to structural heart disease,a significant percentage of VA are idiopathic(occurring in patients with otherwise normal hearts).Classic antiarrhythmic drugs(AADs)for VA have limited effectiveness,and pose the risk of life-threatening VT/VF.Very few AADs have been successful in the last few decades,due to safety concerns or limited benefits in comparison to existing therapy.Amiodarone has emerged as the leading antiarrhythmic therapy for termination and prevention of VA in different clinical settings because of its proven efficacy and safety.For VT/VF,implantable cardioverter defibrillator(ICD)appear to be the unique,yet unsatisfactory,solution.Indications for ICD have evolved considerably from initial implantation exclusively in patients who had survived one or more cardiac arrests and failed pharmacological therapy.Multipie clinical trials have established that ICD use results in improved survival compared with antiarrhythmic agents for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death(SCD).Large prospective,randomized,multicenter studies have also demonstrated that ICD therapy is effective for primary prevention of sudden death and improves total survival in selected patient populations who have not previously had a cardiac arrest or sustained VT.Catheter ablation is now an important option to control recurrent VT.The field has evolved rapidly and is a work in progress.Ablation is often a sole therapy of VT in patients without structural heart disease and is commonly combined with an ICD and/or antiarrhythmic therapy for scar-related VT associated with structural heart disense.     

Ventricular tachycardia in arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy: clinical presentation, risk stratification and results of long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND: Not all patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARVD/C) are at risk for sudden cardiac death. The aim of the study was to evaluate the risk stratification in patients with ARVD/C. METHODS AND RESULTS: Programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) was performed in 34 ARVD/C patients. Twenty-two, 7 and 4 patients had documented sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (smVT), non-smVT and ventricular fibrillation, respectively. One patient experienced syncope only. An implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) was implanted in 11 patients inducible in smVT with hemodynamic compromise, in 4 patients with documented ventricular fibrillation and in one patient with non-smVT (194 ms tachycardia cycle length) (ICD group, n = 16). Ten patients were left without any antiarrhythmic therapy, 5 patients received antiarrhythmic drugs and 3 patients underwent successful VT ablation (non-ICD group, n = 18). Thirteen patients had an abnormal signal averaged ECG. During 6.5 +/- 2.4 years 69% of ICD patients received appropriate discharges and one non-ICD patient had a hemodynamically tolerated smVT recurrence (no sudden cardiac death in both groups). Comparison between the cycle lengths of clinical VT, induced VT and follow-up VT revealed a strong relationship (R = 0.62-0.88). On multivariate analysis abnormal signal averaged ECG and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction were statistically significant predictors for VT recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In ARVD/C the tachycardia cycle length of clinical VT, PVS-induced VT and follow-up VT correlate well implicating that a PVS-guided approach does not provide additional information. Spontaneous arrhythmia in combination with clinical presentation allows identification of patients in need for an ICD.     

Effect of antiarrhythmic therapy on mortality in survivors of myocardial infarction with asymptomatic complex ventricular arrhythmias: Basel Antiarrhythmic Study of Infarct Survival (BASIS)

In view of the high risk of sudden cardiac death and the prognostic importance of complex ventricular ectopic activity, the effects of prophylactic antiarrhythmic treatment were investigated prospectively in patients with persisting asymptomatic complex arrhythmias after myocardial infarction. End points were total mortality and arrhythmic events (sudden death, sustained ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation). Of 1,220 consecutively screened survivors of myocardial infarction, 312 had Lown class 3 or 4b arrhythmia on 24 h electrocardiographic recordings before hospital discharge and consented to the study. They were randomized to individualized antiarrhythmic treatment (Group 1, n = 100), treatment with low dose amiodarone, 200 mg/day (Group 2, n = 98) or no antiarrhythmic therapy (Group 3 [control group], n = 114). During the 1 year follow-up period, 10 patients in Group 1 died, as did 5 in Group 2 and 15 in Group 3. On the basis of an intention to treat analysis, the probability of survival of patients given amiodarone was significantly greater than that of control patients (p less than 0.05). In addition, arrhythmic events were significantly reduced by amiodarone (p less than 0.01). These effects were less marked and not significant for individually treated patients (Group 1). These findings suggest that low dose amiodarone decreases mortality in the 1st year after myocardial infarction in patients at high risk of sudden death.     

Sudden cardiac death

Opinion statement Sudden cardiac death is often due to a ventricular arrhythmia. When a patient presents with a malignant arrhythmia unrelated to a transient reversible cause, there is a high probability of recurrent arrhythmia and sudden death. Clinical trials have shown a uniform survival benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in survivors of a malignant arrhythmia when compared with drug therapy. However, only 1% to 5% of patients survive an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, emphasizing the need for primary prevention of sudden death. Clinical trial data available in this regard are largely limited to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Mortality can be reduced by the ICD in patients with CAD and depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 30%. If left ventricular function is only moderately depressed (LVEF between 30% and 40%), the presence of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia with inducible ventricular arrhythmia at electrophysiologic testing identifies patients who benefit from an ICD. The role of the ICD in primary prevention of sudden death in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy is less clear at this time. Preliminary data indicate that the presence of heart failure symptoms in this population increases risk of sudden death that can be prevented by an ICD. Antiarrhythmic drugs have little role in prevention of sudden death; however, drugs that block the effects of β-adrenergic stimulation, angiotensin, and aldosterone reduce mortality partly through their salutary effects on sudden death. Finally, a number of inherited defects of genes coding for ion channels, contractile sarcomeric proteins, and cell-to-cell junction proteins can result in primary electrical abnormalities and sudden death. The ICD is effective for secondary prevention, but its role in primary prevention is controversial and should be based on individual risk factors.     

Arrhythmogene rechtsventrikuläre Kardiomyopathie

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a genetically determined heart muscle disease and a major cause of sudden cardiac death and ventricular tachyarrhythmia in young, apparently healthy individuals and athletes. Patients affected by ARVC should be excluded from competitive sports and vigorous training. To provide optimal treatment, early diagnosis and risk stratification are mandatory and genetic counseling of families is recommended. Tailored treatment strategies aim at the prevention of ventricular tachyarrhythmia and sudden death as well as the preclusion of disease progression and symptomatic heart failure. Patients with a low risk of sudden death need either no specific treatment or can be treated with beta blockers or antiarrhythmic drugs, depending on the clinical manifestation of the arrhythmia. Catheter ablation in ARVC constitutes a symptom-oriented and palliative approach for frequently relapsing ventricular tachycardia refractory to antiarrhythmic medication. However, despite good acute results of catheter ablation, there is a high incidence of recurrence during long-term follow-up. In patients with ARVC at high risk of sudden death, implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) improves long-term survival by detection and termination of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. In the long term, however, the cumulative incidence of mainly lead-related complications of ICD therapy must be considered in the young population with ARVC, particularly when the indications are for primary prevention of sudden death or life-threatening arrhythmias. The proposed algorithm of therapeutic management in ARVC is under constant validation, development and refinement.     

Long-term results of amiodarone therapy in patients with recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation

Four hundred sixty-two patients, all with either documented spontaneous sustained ventricular tachycardia or cardiac arrest unresponsive to other antiarrhythmic drugs (2.6/patient), were treated with amiodarone. Thirty-five patients (7.6%) failed to respond or died during the initial oral or intravenous loading phase. The remaining 427 patients were discharged on treatment with oral amiodarone and followed up for up to 98 months. Recurrence of ventricular tachycardia or sudden cardiac death at 1, 3 and 5 years by life-table analysis was 19%, 33% and 43%, respectively, for patients discharged on amiodarone therapy. The sudden cardiac death rate was 9%, 15% and 21%, respectively, at 1, 3 and 5 years. Side effects were reported by 45% of patients after 1 year, by 61% after 2 years and by 86% after 5 years. Amiodarone was discontinued because of side effects in 14%, 26% and 37% of patients after 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively. Incidence rates of recurrence of arrhythmia, sudden cardiac death and side effects were highest in the early months and then decreased. By multivariate analysis, advanced age, low ejection fraction and a history of cardiac arrest were independent risk factors for sudden cardiac death during amiodarone therapy.     

Amiodarone: clinical trials

Amiodarone is an antiarrhythmic agent commonly used in the treatment of supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This article reviews the results and clinical implications of primary and secondary prevention trials in which amiodarone was used in one of the treatment arms. Key post-myocardial infarction primary prevention trials include the European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial (EMIAT) and the Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Trial (CAMIAT), both of which demonstrated that amiodarone reduced arrhythmic but not overall mortality. In congestive heart failure patients, amiodarone was studied as a primary prevention strategy in two pivotal trials: Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiac en Argentina (GESICA) and Amiodarone in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and Asymptomatic Ventricular Arrhythmia (CHF-STAT). Amiodarone was associated with a neutral overall survival and a trend toward improved survival in nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients in CHF/STAT and improved survival in GESICA. In post-myocardial infarction patients with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and a depressed ejection fraction, the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) demonstrated that implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) statistically improved survival compared to the antiarrhythmic drug arm, most of whose patients were taking amiodarone. In patients with histories of sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, the Cardiac Arrest Study in Seattle: Conventional Versus Amiodarone Drug Evaluation (CASCADE) trial demonstrated that empiric amiodarone lowered arrhythmic recurrence rates compared to other drugs guided by serial Holter or electrophysiologic studies. However, arrhythmic death rates were high in both treatment arms of the study. Several secondary prevention trials, including the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Study (AVID), the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS), and the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), have demonstrated the superiority of ICD therapy compared to empiric amiodarone in improving overall survival. Based on the above findings, amiodarone is safe to use in post-myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure patients that need antiarrhythmic therapy. Although amiodarone is effective in treating malignant arrhythmias, high-risk patients should be considered for an ICD as frontline therapy.     

Amiodarone versus Implantable Defibrillator (AMIOVIRT): Background, Rationale, Design, Methods, Results and Implications

Non ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) is a substrate for sudden cardiac death. Treatment with amiodarone may have a positive or neutral survival benefit. The role of ICD therapy in the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in asymptomatic NIDCM patients is not clear. The purpose of the Amiodarone versus Implantable Defibrillator (AMIOVIRT) study was to compare total mortality, arrhythmia-free survival, quality of life and costs of therapy in patients with NIDCM, asymptomatic non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) and left ventricular ejection fraction 相似文献