胺碘酮用于心房颤动心律转复后维持窦性心律的远期疗效观察

评价胺碘酮对８１例慢性心房颤动患者转复后长期维持窦性心律的有效性和安全性。胺碘酮负荷量６００ｍｇ／ｄ１～２周、４００ｍｇ／ｄ１～２周，继以维持量２１５±５０ｍｇ／ｄ，服药１～２周后行电转复。９例（９／７６，１１．８４％）在胺碘酮负荷量期间转为窦性心律，７２例电转复为窦性心律，平均随访１４．５个月（０．５～９２个月）．胺碘酮维持窦性心律半年有效率７１．６％（５８／８１），１年有效率６３．０％（５１／８１），副反应发生率１１．１％（９／８１）．未见严重毒副反应，逻辑回归分析显示心功能分级为维持窦性心律的负性因素，胺碘酮为慢性心房颤动转复后维持窦性心律的有效药物，用量以较小为宜。     

Monophasic versus biphasic waveform shocks for atrial fibrillation cardioversion in patients with concomitant amiodarone therapy.

AIMS: With transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF), biphasic are more effective than monophasic waveforms. We sought to determine the ideal energy levels for biphasic waveforms. Methods We compared biphasic truncated exponential waveforms with monophasic damped sine waveform defibrillators, in a prospective, single-centre, randomized (1:1 ratio) study. The study included 154 patients receiving concomitant amiodarone; 77 received serial biphasic (50, 100, 150, up to 175 J) and 77 monophasic shocks (100, 200, 300, up to 360 J), as necessary. Results First-shock efficacy was similar in the two groups (57 vs. 55%, P = 0.871, respectively), as were serial-shocks (90 vs. 92%, P = 0.780). Both groups received equal numbers of shocks (1.8 +/- 1.1 vs. 1.7 +/- 1.0, P = 0.921). In both groups, serum creatine kinase levels showed a small but significant increase. The increase was, however, higher in the monophasic group. CONCLUSION: In patients with concomitant amiodarone therapy, biphasic truncated exponential shocks, using half the energy, were as effective as monophasic damped sine shocks. The biphasic scheme was not more efficacious for cardioverting AF. In our population, a first shock of at least 100 J seemed advisable with either waveform. If necessary, escalating shocks must be performed, but ideal levels of increase per shock are still uncertain for biphasic waveforms.     

伊布利特与胺碘酮转复持续性心房颤动的疗效和安全性对比研究

目的 比较伊布利特和胺碘酮转复持续性心房颤动（PAF）的疗效和安全性.方法 2012年3月至2014年5月选取郑州市第十人民医院心内科住院的72例PAF患者,随机分为2组.伊布利特组（33例）采用伊布利特静脉注射转复窦性心律,用量：体质量≥60kg的患者,首次剂量1 mg,体质量＜60kg的患者,首次剂量0.01 mg/kg.胺碘酮组（39例）采用胺碘酮静脉注射转复窦性心律,用量：体质量≥60 kg的患者,首次剂量300 mg,体质量＜60 kg的患者,首次剂量5 mg/kg.比较两组患者用药后30 min内、3h内、12 h内、24h内的转复率,并记录两组患者用药过程中的不良反应.结果 伊布利特组患者用药后30 min内、3h内、12h内、24h内转复率均明显高于胺碘酮组（x2=10.7330,10.6500,8.4538,5.1932,P＜0.01或P＜0.05）;伊布利特组患者的平均转复时间明显短于胺碘酮组（t=7.9009,P＜0.01）;伊布利特QTc平均恢复时间短于胺碘酮（t=15.783,P＜0.01）;两组患者不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义（x2=0.4690,P＞0.05）,但伊布利特组的不良反应持续时间较胺碘酮组更短[（0.38±0.10）h比（16.75±8.39）h,t=11.195,P＜0.01].结论 与胺碘酮相比,伊布利特对持续性房颤的转复率高,转复时间短,不良反应消失快.     

Maintenance of sinus rhythm with metoprolol CR initiated before cardioversion and repeated cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.

AIMS: To assess the effect of metoprolol in combination with repeated cardioversion on maintenance of sinus rhythm (SR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive outpatients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) were randomized to treatment with metoprolol CR or placebo in a double-blind fashion. Study treatment was started at least one week before direct current (DC) cardioversion. Patients were followed once a week during the first 6 weeks after cardioversion. In case of relapse during this period, a second cardioversion was performed. Total treatment time was 6 months. A total of 168 patients were randomized to metoprolol (n = 83) or placebo (n = 85). The dose of study treatment at cardioversion was 169 +/- 47 mg in the metoprolol group and 180 +/- 40 mg in the placebo group (P = 0.12). In an intention-to-treat analysis, 46 patients (55%) in the metoprolol group and 34 patients (40%) in the placebo group (P = 0.04) had SR 1 week after cardioversion, and 38 patients (46%) in the metoprolol group compared with 22 patients (26%) in the placebo group had SR after 6 months (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: A treatment strategy of metoprolol CR started before cardioversion in combination with prompt second cardioversion in case of early relapse (1-6 weeks) significantly increases the proportion of patients in SR during six months of follow-up.     

心房颤动复律后联用缬沙坦与胺碘酮的疗效

目的观察口服胺碘酮和缬沙坦在心房颤动复律后维持窦性心律的疗效。方法持续性心房颤动患者98例,成功转复窦性心律后随机分为两组:胺碘酮组48例和胺碘酮联用缬沙坦组(联用组)50例。随访2年,观察两组维持窦性心律及左心房内径。结果胺碘酮组和联用组维持窦性心律的有效率分别为68．8％和86．0％,联用组左心房内径明显缩小,两组差异有统计学意义。结论胺碘酮联用缬沙坦可降低心房颤动复发率,更有效地维持心房颤动转复后的窦性心律。     

心房颤动电复律与胺碘酮节律控制的效果——附53例临床观察

目的：观察电复律＋胺碘酮维持治疗对持续性心房颤动（房颤）节律控制的效果及安全性。方法：回顾分析2007年8月至2010年12月在我院行心脏电复律＋胺碘酮维持治疗的53例持续性房颤患者的资料,对复律≥2年的24例患者进行随访,其中维持窦性心律1.5年者16例（复律组）,房颤复发者8例（复发组）。结果：53例有50例达到复律早期成功,早期成功率为94.3%,与电复律前比较,电复律后患者的总心室率[（109777±6757）次/min比（81083±5036）次/min]、平均心率[（81±8）次/min比（62±6）次/min]、最快心室率[（145±13）次/min比（123±11）次/min]、最慢心室率[（67±7）次/min比（45±6）次/min]明显减低（P〈0.05）;与复律组比较,复发组的房颤持续时间[（4.36±1.47）月比（8.7±2.15）月]、左房内径[（35.85±2.07）mm比（43.15±1.95）mm]、年龄[（54.3±11.7）岁比（72.1±8.3）岁]均明显增大（P〈0.01～〈0.001）。所有病人无明显副作用。结论：电复律联合小剂量胺碘酮维持治疗对大部分持续性房颤患者有效、安全、简便,应该推广。     

心房颤动复律后维持窦性心律影响因素的临床分析

目的探讨心房颤动（Af）复律后维持窦性心律的影响因素。方法选择2006年～2008年首次诊断Af（发病时间〈3个月）经药物或直流电成功转复窦性心律的住院患者98例。随访6个月后Af未复发者为维持窦性心律组（A组）52例,Af复发者（B组）46例。回顾性对比分析两组的临床特征、心电图指标、超声心动图（UCG）参数及相互关系,探讨A组的独立预测因子及诊断价值。结果 6个月随访后,52例（占53%）仍维持窦性心律,46例Af复发,半数以上复发在复律后2周内。两组间在性别、年龄、基础心脏病、β受体阻断剂使用、复律方式、左心室射血分数（LVEF）等差异无统计学意义。B组与A组相比,复律前Af持续时间（28.7±26.3d对1.3±1.4d,P〈0.01）、P波最大时间（Pmax）（P〈0.01）和P波离散度（Pd）（52±12ms对40±10ms,P〈0.01）、左心房直径（LAD）（47±4mm对41±3mm,P〈0.01）和左房自发性声学显影（P〈0.01）差异有统计学意义;但是两组间P波最小时间（Pmin）差异无显著性。多元回归分析显示：Af持续时间〈7d（OR=2.61）、LAD〈45mm（OR=2.10）和Pd〈47ms（OR=3.72）是复律后维持窦性心律的独立预测因子,准确性分别为82%、83%和86%。Pmax和左房无自发性声学显影仅是单因素影响因子。结论复律前Af持续时间、左房大小和Pd是预测Af复律后维持窦性心律的重要因素。     

培垛普利和厄贝沙坦在胺碘酮治疗慢性心房颤动中的作用

目的观察培垛普利和厄贝沙坦分别与胺碘酮联合运用在持续性心房颤动复律中的作用。方法持续性心房颤动患者216例,按入院顺序随机分成A（胺碘酮组72例）、B（胺碘酮＋培垛普利组72例）、c（胺碘酮＋厄贝沙坦组72例）三组。A组抗凝3周后给予胺碘酮静脉450mg负荷,同时口服胺碘酮0．2gTid×7d,0．2gBid×7d,随后0．2gqd。B组开始抗凝3周时给予培垛普利4mgqd,C组开始抗凝3周时给予厄贝沙坦150mgqd,3周后加用胺碘酮复律（剂量和服法同A组）。4周后观察各组转复为窦性心律的例数和已复律者6个月时窦性心律维持情况。结果厄贝沙坦和培垛普利＋胺碘酮组较仅用胺碘酮组转复成功率（72．86％、70．42％比54．29％,P〈0．01）及中期（6个月）维持窦性的情况均优于单用胺碘酮组（90．00％、84．31％比68．42％,P〈0．05）。结论复律前短期服用厄贝沙坦或培垛普利均能提高胺碘酮对持续性房颤复律效果,中期使用厄贝沙坦和培垛普利能防止房颤的复发。     

Prospective randomized study comparing amiodarone vs. amiodarone plus losartan vs. amiodarone plus perindopril for the prevention of atrial fibrillation recurrence in patients with lone paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: The purpose of this trial was to compare the long-term efficacy of low-dose amiodarone with losartan and perindopril (both combined with low-dose amiodarone) for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence in patients with lone paroxysmal AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: One-hundred and seventy-seven patients with lone paroxysmal AF were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: group 1 received low-dose amiodarone alone, group 2 received low-dose amiodarone plus losartan, and group 3 received low-dose amiodarone plus perindopril. Left atrial diameter was measured with transthoracic echocardiogram at baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after randomization. The primary endpoint was the incidence of AF documented by 12-lead ECG or Holter after 14 days and within 24 months after randomization. The primary endpoint was reached in 24 patients (41%) in group 1, 11 (19%) in group 2, and 14 (24%) in group 3 (P = 0.02). The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in AF recurrence in group 2 (P = 0.006, log-rank test) as well as in group 3 (P = 0.04, log-rank test) when compared with group 1. No difference in the AF recurrence-free survival was found between group 2 and group 3. After 24 months follow-up, the left atrial diameter in group 2 and group 3 was significantly smaller than that in group 1 (36 +/- 2.3 and 35 +/- 2.4 vs. 38 +/- 2.4 mm, P < 0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the combination of perindopril or losartan with low-dose amiodarone is more effective than low-dose amiodarone alone for the prevention of AF recurrence in patients with lone paroxysmal AF. Adding losartan or perindopril to amiodarone can inhibit left atrial enlargement in this group of patients.     

厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮对阵发性房颤复律后维持窦性心律的效果

目的：观察厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮对阵发性心房颤动复律后维持窦性心律的临床效果及其对左心房内径的影响。方法：选择阵发性心房颤动患者89例,分为胺碘酮治疗组（44例,单纯服用胺碘酮）,联合治疗组（45例,服用胺碘酮及厄贝沙坦）,随访12个月,观察两组患者治疗前后窦性心律维持率,左房内径的变化,并进行比较分析。结果：治疗12个月后,与胺碘酮组比较,联合治疗组窦性心律维持率明显提高（64.3%比81.4%）,左房内径明显减小[（40.12±10.6）mm比（34.10±10.11）mm],P均〈0.05。结论：厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮对阵发性心房颤动复律后维持窦性心律的作用明显优于单用胺碘酮,且明显抑制左房扩大,无明显不良反应。     

A randomized placebo-controlled trial with amiodarone for persistent atrial fibrillation in rheumatic mitral stenosis after successful balloon mitral valvuloplasty

ObjectiveAtrial fibrillation is the most common sustained arrhythmia in patients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD). This study was conducted to determine the maintenance of sinus rhythm with amiodarone therapy following DC cardioversion (DCCV), early after successful balloon mitral valvuloplasty (BMV).MethodsPatients were randomized to amiodarone group and placebo group and their baseline characteristics were recorded. DCCV was done 48 h after BMV. After cardioversion, oral amiodarone was started initially 200 mg three times a day for 2 weeks, then 200 mg twice daily for two weeks followed by 200 mg once daily for 12 months. Patients in placebo group received DCCV alone without preloading amiodarone. After DCCV, they were given placebo for 12 months.ResultsThe 3 months follow-up period was completed by 77 patients (95%). Of them, 31 (77.5%) patients in amiodarone group and 14 (34.1%) in placebo group remained in sinus rhythm (SR). The 12 months follow-up period was completed by 73 patients (90.1%). Of them, 22 (55%) patients in amiodarone group and 7 (17.1%) in placebo group remained in SR.ConclusionWe conclude that amiodarone is more effective than placebo in maintenance of SR at the end of 3 months following successful cardioversion and more patients continued to remain in SR even at the end of 12 months without major serious adverse effects.     

Supraventricular ectopy and recurrence of atrial fibrillation after electrical cardioversion.

AIMS: Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) is usually preceded by a premature atrial complex (PAC). We hypothesized that patients with a high frequency of atrial ectopic activity after restoration of sinus rhythm following direct current cardioversion would be more likely to experience recurrence of AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-four patients with documented persistent AF were studied. A 24 h Holter recording was performed from the day of external direct current cardioversion. Patients were reviewed at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months. After 6 months, 59% of patients had experienced a recurrence of AF. Neither the frequency of PACs nor the frequency or duration of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) episodes predicted AF recurrence (P=0.60, 0.30, and 0.42, respectively). There was a trend towards maximum rate of SVT predicting recurrence of AF (P=0.08). CONCLUSION: Frequency of supraventricular ectopy or the number and length of SVT runs in the 24 h after restoration of sinus rhythm are not strong predictors of recurrence of AF after electrical cardioversion. A larger study would be required to detect a small predictive effect.     

Flecainide versus ibutilide for immediate cardioversion of atrial fibrillation of recent onset.

AIMS: This study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous flecainide and ibutilide for immediate cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a prospective, randomised trial, including 207 patients with AF of recent onset (< or = 48 h). Flecainide was given over 20 min at a dose of 2 mg/kg body weight (maximum 200 mg), ibutilide was infused at a dose of 1 mg (or 0.01 mg/kg if less than 60 kg) over 10 min, followed by a 10 min observation period and an identical second dose if AF did not convert to sinus rhythm (SR). Treatment was considered successful if SR occurred within 90 min of starting medication. The conversion rates were 56.4% in patients given flecainide and 50.0% in patients given ibutilide (P=0.34). Multivariate analysis revealed that a lower age for women independently increased the probability of conversion. None of the other variables, including left atrial size, left ventricular systolic function, presence of left ventricular hypertrophy, plasma levels of potassium or magnesium at baseline, or concomitant use of digoxin, beta-blocker, diltiazem or verapamil were predictors of conversion. The frequency of adverse events was comparable in the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the cardioversion efficacy or in the risk of adverse events between flecainide and ibutilide in patients with AF of recent onset. In patients without contraindications to both medications, the physician's choice has to be governed by other factors.     

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.     

Remote ischemic preconditioning in a setting of electrical cardioversion of early onset persistent atrial fibrillation (RIP CAF trial): Rationale and study design

BackgroundThe beneficial effect of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIP) on electrophysiological parameters resulting in lower inducibility and sustainability of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with paroxysmal AF has been recently demonstrated in a randomized trial. However, the potential clinical impact of RIP on persistent AF (CAF) has not been investigated. Therefore, we designed a randomized trial set in a setting of electrical cardioversion (CV) of early onset CAF.AimThe aim of the study is to answer the following questions: I) Does RIP have impact on rate of spontaneous conversion into sinus rhythm (SR) within 24 h after first RIP intervention? II) Does RIP have the potential to improve the acute outcome of CV following a standardized protocol?MethodsThe presented study is a two-armed randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, multi-center trial in a cohort of 588 patients with early onset CAF referred for electrical CV. The patients will undergo 3 sessions (immediately after randomization, the following morning, and directly before scheduled CV 24 h after randomization) of either RIP intervention or a sham procedure. The primary outcome of the study, i.e. documentation of SR 24 h after randomization as well secondary outcome i.e. stable SR first CV without usage of anti-arrhythmic drugs will be documented by 12-lead surface electrocardiography.ConclusionPreviously observed positive effect of RIP on atrial electrophysiology might be also implemented in a clinical setting of CV and therefore simplified and improve patient treatment.     

胺碘酮治疗心力衰竭并心房颤动的有效性及安全性

目的:评价胺碘酮对心力衰竭合并心房颤动患者心室率影响,转复窦性心律的可能性.以及治疗的安全性。方法:采用随机、单盲、安慰剂对照方法,运用24 h动态心电图监测胺碘酮治疗组(33例),对照组(31例)的心律、心率。结果:(1)胺碘酮治疗组的心房颤动转复率为33.33%,高于对照组(3.29%).P<0.01;(2)治疗三个月后治疗组平均心室率明显下降(P<0.05);(3)两组间左室射血分数(LVEF)无差异(P>0.05),治疗组QTc延长, 但改为维持量后QTc恢复正常,均无严重副作用。结论:胺碘酮能显著减慢心率并使一部分心力衰竭合并心房颤动患者复律。     

胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死并心房颤动的疗效

目的:观察胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死(AMI)并心房颤动(房颤)的临床疗效及安全性.方法:对34例AMI并房颤患者首剂静脉注射胺碘酮150 mg,随后以0.5～1.5 mg/min维持静脉滴注.静脉用药2～7(3.24±1.7)d.结果:房颤转复率2 h内为47.1%(16/34),24 h内为70.6%(24/34),48 h内为85.3%(29/34),72h内为91.2%(31/34).治疗期间,5例(14.7%)出现窦性心动过缓,减量后心率恢复4例(11.8%);4例(11.8%)出现血压降低,用多巴胺后血压上升至正常.结论:静脉注射胺碘酮对AMI并房颤疗效明显,未见严重不良反应.