2种用药方案治疗心房颤动的成本-效果分析

目的:比较胺碘酮与索他洛尔治疗心房颤动(AF)的成本与效果。方法:102例患者均分成A、B组,分别给予胺碘酮、索他洛尔治疗,并进行成本-效果分析。结果:2组成本分别为2714.18、2176.56元,有效率分别为78.43%、70.59%(P<0.01),不良反应发生率分别为13.73%、19.61%(P<0.01)。结论:胺碘酮转复房颤有效率与索他洛尔相当,但维持窦律疗效优于索他洛尔,对心脏毒副作用小于索他洛尔。     

胺碘酮与索他洛尔治疗心房颤动（AF）的成本与效果

目的探讨分析胺碘酮与索他洛尔治疗心房颤动（AF）的成本与效果。方法选取我院2011年1月至2011年12月间收治的60例心房颤动（AF）患者,在征得患者及家属同意的情况下进行本次调查研究,将60例心房颤动（AF）患者分为观察组和对照组,每组患者各30例。观察组给予胺碘酮治疗,对照组给予索他洛尔治疗,比较两组患者的成本与效果。结果观察组用药成本为2111.04元,对照组的用药成本为735.26元,两组比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。观察组总有效率为83.33%,对照组总有效率为76.67%,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论胺碘酮与索他洛尔治疗心房颤动（AF）的成本与效果比较,胺碘酮治疗心房颤动（AF）的成本较高,效果较好。索他洛尔治疗心房颤动（AF）的成本较低,效果与胺碘酮相当,但对心脏具有一定的毒副作用。     

索他洛尔与胺碘酮转复心房颤动的疗效对比

目的 观察对比两种目前临床治疗心房颤动的常用药品的剂量疗效,提供临床治疗的经验.方法 选择门诊心房颤动患者344例,随机按每病种分成两组,分别服用索他洛尔与胺碘酮,调整用药剂量治疗并观察12个月.结果 索他洛尔组与胺碘酮组各为172人,索他洛尔组心房颤动转为窦性心律45人,转复率26.2%,复发5例,转复后窦性心律维持率88.9%;胺碘酮组心房颤动转为窦性心律41人,转复率23.8%,复发2例,转复后窦性心律维持率95.1%.结论 索他洛尔组治疗心房颤动的转复率略高于胺碘酮组,转复后窦性心律维持率胺碘酮组高于索他洛尔组.     

胺碘酮和索他洛尔治疗儿童室性心律失常的疗效及其对血清脑型利钠肽、超敏C反应蛋白水平的影响

目的:探讨胺碘酮和索他洛尔对室性心律失常患儿血清脑型利钠肽(BNP)、超敏C 反应蛋白(hs鄄CRP)水平的影响。方法:选取2016 年4 月至2018 年3 月我院收治的90 例室性心律失常患儿按随机数字表法分为胺碘酮组和索他洛尔组各45 例,两组患儿分别给予胺碘酮和索他洛尔治疗,比较两组患儿室性心律失常治疗效果,治疗前后血清BNP 和hs-CRP 水平,心电图PR 间期和QT 间期,复律时间及不良反应发生情况。结果:胺碘酮组治疗总有效率为88郾89%,与索他洛尔组的84郾44% 比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗后,胺碘酮组血清BNP、hs鄄CRP 水平低于索他洛尔组(P<0.05),心电图PR 间期、QT 间期与索他洛尔组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),复律时间短于索他洛尔组(P<0.05)。胺碘酮组总不良反应发生率与索他洛尔组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:胺碘酮和索他洛尔对室性心律失常患儿均有一定治疗效果,其中胺碘酮更能有效改善患儿血清BNP 和hs鄄CRP 水平,促进心律恢复。     

胺碘酮和索他洛尔治疗心房颤动对房颤复律及其安全性的比较观察

目的:分析索他洛尔与胺碘酮治疗心房颤动的心房颤动复律及安全性。方法:选取某院2016年1月~2017年2月收治的100例心房颤动患者资料,将行胺碘酮医治的50例患者设为研究组,行索他洛尔医治的50例患者设为对照组,比对两组心功能指标、疗效指标及副反应状况。结果:研究组Pmax、Pd等指标水平(112.01±11.28)ms、(45.46±6.10)ms比对照组优,复律时间、房颤发作次数等(4.20±1.42)h、(5.80±0.92)次比对照组优,副反应总发生率(12.00%)比对照组(28.00%)低,差异显著具统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:心房颤动患者行胺碘酮医治可缩短心房颤动复律的时间,改善心功能,降低并发症总发生率。     

胺碘酮和索他洛尔在心律失常治疗中的疗效及安全性比较

目的探讨在心律失常的治疗中应用胺碘酮和索他洛尔的治疗效果和安全性。方法抽取本院近两年收治的心律失常患者98例,均等划分为A组和B组,每组49例,A组患者通过服用索他洛尔进行治疗;B组患者则通过服用胺碘酮来进行治疗,两组除治疗药物不同外,在总体的年龄、身体状况、精神情感等方面无明显差异(P>0.05)。通过比较两组的治疗效果和不良反应的发生情况而得到想要的结论。结果对所获得的数据进行统计学分析检验,发现B组患者的转复率略高于A组,但不具有普遍意义(P>0.05);B组患者恢复正常心率的时间却明显短于A组(P<0.05);且B组患者治疗过程中不良反应的发生率为17.9%,显著低于A组患者的不良反应发生率29.1%(P<0.05)。结论胺碘酮比起索他洛尔能够更好地治疗心律失常,且患者出现不良反应的情况也明显减少,安全性更高,大大应用于医疗实践一定会有很好的前景。     

索他洛尔与胺碘酮在治疗频发多源性室性早搏中的疗效对比

目的探讨索他洛尔与胺碘酮在治疗频发多源性室性早搏中的疗效对比。方法我院收治100例多源性室性早搏患者,按照随机、对照的原则将患者分为观察组及对照组,各50例,观察组应用索他洛尔治疗,对照组应用胺碘酮治疗,比较两种药物对患者室性早搏、心率、PR、QRS、QT间期的影响。结果 2种药物均能降低患者室性早搏的发生率,2组临床疗效差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);索他洛尔在减慢患者心率方面有明显优势,胺碘酮对QT间期延长程度>索他洛尔,两组患者比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论索他洛尔与胺碘酮在治疗频发多源性室性早搏均有较好的临床疗效,在临床治疗中要个体化用药。     

小剂量胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死伴快速型心律失常

目的研究小剂量胺碘酮对急性心肌梗死（AMI）合并快速型心律失常的疗效。方法120例AMI合并快速型心律失常随机分为2组胺碘酮组与索他洛尔组,分别进行治疗。结果住院期间胺碘酮组梗死后心绞痛发生次数,应用硝酸甘油量,镇痛药次数均较索他洛尔组少;随访3年,胺碘酮组发生不稳定型心绞痛、再发性心肌梗死,心衰等均较索他洛尔少(P＜0.05)。结论小剂量胺碘酮治疗AMI合并快速型心律失常作用可靠,可作为预防再梗死改善预后的药物。     

胺碘酮联合索他洛尔治疗持续性单形室速7例疗效观察

目的主要是研究胺碘酮联合索他洛尔治疗持续性单形室速的临床疗效。方法本组7例,经体表心电图证实单形性室速持续时间〉30 min,在给予大剂量胺碘酮治疗后持续性单形室速未能快速有效控制时,开始联合应用索他洛尔治疗,出院后继续给予维持量预防。结果联合应用胺碘酮和索他洛尔治疗后,全部患者的持续性单形室速均得到满意控制,长期随访患者2年,第10个月有1例患者猝死,其余患者情况良好。结论胺碘酮联合索他洛尔治疗可增强抗心律失常作用,快速而有效控制顽固性室速,疗效显著,未见严重不良反应及低血压,所有患者均无心功能恶化现象,而在室速控制后多数患者心功能得到明显改善。     

胺碘酮与索他洛尔治疗心肌梗死合并心律失常的疗效比较

目的 :观察胺碘酮与索他洛尔对急性心肌梗死 (AMI)合并快速型心律失常的疗效。方法 :10 0例AMI合并快速型心律失常患者随机单盲分为 2组 ,胺碘酮组 :胺碘酮 0 2g ,tid ,有效后减至 0 2g ,po ,qd ,疗程 4wk ,随访 3a。索他洛尔组 :索他洛尔80mg ,po ,bid ,剂量随病情调整 ,疗程 4wk ,随访 3a。结果 :住院期间胺碘酮组梗死后心绞痛发生次数、应用硝酸甘油量、止痛药次数均较索他洛尔组少。经随访 3a ,胺碘酮组发生不稳定性心绞痛、再发心肌梗死、心力衰竭均较索他洛尔组少 (P <0 0 5 )。结论 :小剂量胺碘酮治疗AMI合并快速型心律失常作用可靠 ,值得应用。     

低剂量索他洛尔治疗老年房颤的疗效及安全性评价

目的探讨低剂量索他洛尔（80～160mg/d）对老年房颤的疗效及安全性。方法选择60例年龄大于65岁的房颤患者随机接受索他洛尔（施太可）或可达龙治疗。施太可的剂量每天80mg开始,未达到疗效者每周增加40mg/d,直至达到疗效或剂量增加到160mg/d。可达龙组剂量每天200mg/d。未达疗效者每周增加100mg/d,直至达到疗效或剂量增加到400mg/d。疗效及不良反应采用临床及动态心电图结果评定。结果①施太可组及可达龙组治疗老年房颤的总有效率分别为63.3%与62.1%(P＞0.05);②治疗第一周后施太可组的有效率为26.7%较可达龙组一周后的有效率10.3%明显较高（P＞0.05）;③施太可组房颤的有效率与平均心率下降呈显著的负相关(r=-0.85,P＜0.001)与QTc延长无显著的正相关（r=0.74,P＜0.001）;④施太可组有2例（6.7%）出现轻度副作用,包括无力、头晕、耳鸣,均能耐受,无1例出现尖端扭转型室速。结论低剂量索他洛尔（80～160mg/d）治疗国人老年房颤的疗效确切,副作用少,无明显的致心率失常作用。     

索他洛尔联合普罗帕酮治疗阵发性房颤的效果观察

目的观察索他洛尔联合普罗帕酮在房颤转复后维持窦律的临床疗效和安全性。方法阵发性心房颤动患者29例,分为两组。治疗组(Ⅰ组)13例,用索他洛尔转复房颤,恢复窦律后索他洛尔80mg/ d联合普罗帕酮300mg/d口服维持。对照组(Ⅱ组)16例,可达龙(即胺碘酮)转复房颤,恢复窦律后可达龙0．2g/d或0．2g/d、每周5d,口服维持。每周观察心率、Q—T间期、房颤发作次数、持续时间、药物不良反应,随访3个月。结果Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组治疗显效率分别为69．23%、80%；有效率分别为30．77%、20%；两组治疗效果无显著性差异(均P＞0．05)。治疗后两组窦性心率较治疗前减慢,差异显著(均P＜0．01),但组间无明显差异(P＞0．05)。治疗后两组Q—T间期较治疗前无显著性差异(均P＞0．05),组间亦无显著性差异(P＞0．05)。无其它不良反应。结论小剂量索他洛尔联合普罗帕酮在房颤转复后维持窦律方面,治疗效果好、安全性高、依从性强。     

Atrial Fibrillation in Patients After Cardiovascular Surgery

Atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery is a common problem, occurring in 25–50% of patients. Older patients and those with a prior history of atrial fibrillation are at highest risk, as are those patients in whom preoperative treatment with β-blockers has been discontinued. The immediate sequelae of this common complication include hemodynamic instability and congestive heart failure with long-term consequences including thromboembolic phenomena and increased cost and length of hospitalization. β-Blockers, amiodarone, and sotalol have all been shown to decrease the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, but their use may be limited by their adverse effects. Other agents have some promise as prophylactic agents, but need further verification. Biatrial pacing has been shown to be effective, especially when β-blockers are used simultaneously. The goals for the treatment of atrial fibrillation include maintaining hemodynamic stability, controlling ventricular rate, preventing thromboembolic complications, and restoring sinus rhythm. The most effective strategy for the prevention of atrial fibrillation is to identify the highest-risk patients and target them for prophylaxis with β-blockers, amiodarone, sotalol or pacing.     

Atrial fibrillation: rate control often better than rhythm control

(1) The treatment aims in atrial fibrillation are to reduce patients' symptoms and to prevent both embolism and deterioration of any underlying heart disease. Therapy consists of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs, treatment of any underlying heart disease, and heart rate control. (2) Digoxin, betablockers, diltiazem and verapamil slow the heart rate but rarely restore sinus rhythm. Amiodarone, disopyramide, flecainide, quinidine and sotalol can be used to prevent relapse of atrial fibrillation after electrical cardioversion, but they all have potentially serious adverse effects. New trials of antiarrhythmic treatments have been published since our last review of this subject. (3) In one trial in 403 patients, amiodarone was more effective than sotalol and propafenone in restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm. After 15 months of follow-up, there were fewer strokes among patients treated with amiodarone, but there was no difference between the three drugs in the overall incidence of cardiovascular events. (4) A clinical trial with 4060 patients compared rhythm control (mainly with amiodarone, sotalol or propafenone; sometimes combined with electrical cardioversion) and rate control (with digoxin, betablocker, diltiazem or verapamil; systematically combined with anticoagulant therapy). The antiarrhythmic treatment restored sinus rhythm in more than half the patients in the long term. But rhythm control did not reduce the risk of death or serious cardiovascular events during a mean follow-up period of 3.5 years. Rhythm control caused more adverse events than rate control; subgroup analyses (weak evidence) suggest that rhythm control may also have caused more deaths among patients over 65 and among patients with coronary heart disease. (5) In another trial, electrical cardioversion followed by antiarrhythmic therapy (mainly sotalol) sustainably restored sinus rhythm in more than one-third of 522 patients. But, compared with rate control treatment plus anticoagulant therapy, rhythm control did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, and was associated with a larger number of serious adverse cardiac effects. (6) Other recent trials confirm the risk of serious adverse effects, including severe arrhythmia with sotalol (especially at the start of treatment), and adverse thyroid and pulmonary effects with amiodarone. (7) Combined radiofrequency ablation and cardiac stimulation improved symptoms in some patients with incapacitating atrial fibrillation who had not responded to other treatments. However, this approach carries a risk of serious adverse effects, and its impact on the risk of cardiovascular events and death is not known. (8) In practice, an attempt should be made to restore sinus rhythm with amiodarone and/or electrical cardioversion, in symptomatic, recent or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients under 65 who have no signs or symptoms of coronary heart disease. In other situations, rate control is the first-line option, using digoxin, betablockers (other than sotalol) or calcium channel blockers (diltiazem or verapamil). Whatever the option, treatment must be combined with anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy, and with treatment of any underlying heart disease.     

氯沙坦联合胺碘酮用于阵发性心房颤动转复后预防复发的临床观察

目的观察氯沙坦和胺碘酮联合应用对阵发性心房颤动转复后复发的影响。方法 59例心房颤动患者随机分为治疗组36例和对照组23例,转复后对照组给予胺碘酮口服,治疗组联合应用胺碘酮和氯沙坦治疗,随访12个月,观察2组心房颤动复发率和左房内径变化。结果治疗组心房颤动复发率明显低于对照组,左房内径小于对照组,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论氯沙坦联合胺碘酮可明显降低心房颤动复率后再复发,减小左房内径,效果优于单用胺碘酮。     

Amiodarone - waxed and waned and waxed again

Amiodarone has been used as an anti-arrhythmic drug since the 1970s and has an established role in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Although considered to be a class III anti-arrhythmic, amiodarone also has class I, II and IV actions, which gives it a unique pharmacological and anti-arrhythmic profile. Amiodarone is a structural analogue of thyroid hormone and some of its anti-arrhythmic properties and toxicity may be attributable to interactions with nuclear thyroid hormone receptors. The lipid solubility of amiodarone gives it an exceptionally long half-life. Oral amiodarone takes days to work in ventricular tachyarrhythmias, but iv. amiodarone has immediate effect and can be used in life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Intravenous amiodarone administered after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation improves survival to hospital admission. Many survivors of myocardial infarction (MI) die during the subsequent year, probably due to ventricular arrhythmia. Amiodarone reduces sudden death after MI and this benefit is predominantly observed in patients with preserved cardiac function. Sudden cardiac death, predominantly due to ventricular arrhythmias, is also commonly seen in patients with heart failure. The Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en lsuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina (GESICA) and Estudio Piloto Argentino de Muerte Subita y Amiodarona (EPAMSA) trials showed survival benefit of amiodarone in heart failure, whereas Congestive Heart Failure-Survival Trial of Anti-arrhythmic Therapy (CHF-STAT) did not. Subsequent meta-analysis established a survival benefit of amiodarone in heart failure. Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs) also give survival benefit to patients at risk of sudden death. In patients with a history of ventricular fibrillation or haemodynamically-compromising ventricular tachycardia, ICDs have been shown to be superior to anti-arrhythmic drugs, principally amiodarone. Further analysis has been undertaken to ascertain which patients are most likely to benefit from ICDs, as these are more expensive than treatment with amiodarone. Patients with severely depressed ejection fractions should be the first to be considered for ICDs. A new indication for amiodarone is atrial fibrillation or flutter. Amiodarone is effective in chronic and recent onset atrial fibrillation and orally or iv. for atrial fibrillation after heart surgery. In atrial fibrillation amiodarone is more than or equi-effective with flecainide, quinidine, racemic sotalol, propafenone and diltiazem and therefore should be considered for first line therapy. Amiodarone is also safe and effective in controlling refractory tachyarrhythmias in infants and is safe after cardiac surgery.     

Amiodarone -- waxed and waned and waxed again

Amiodarone has been used as an anti-arrhythmic drug since the 1970s and has an established role in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Although considered to be a class III anti-arrhythmic, amiodarone also has class I, II and IV actions, which gives it a unique pharmacological and anti-arrhythmic profile. Amiodarone is a structural analogue of thyroid hormone and some of its anti-arrhythmic properties and toxicity may be attributable to interactions with nuclear thyroid hormone receptors. The lipid solubility of amiodarone gives it an exceptionally long half-life. Oral amiodarone takes days to work in ventricular tachyarrhythmias, but iv. amiodarone has immediate effect and can be used in life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Intravenous amiodarone administered after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation improves survival to hospital admission. Many survivors of myocardial infarction (MI) die during the subsequent year, probably due to ventricular arrhythmia. Amiodarone reduces sudden death after MI and this benefit is predominantly observed in patients with preserved cardiac function. Sudden cardiac death, predominantly due to ventricular arrhythmias, is also commonly seen in patients with heart failure. The Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en lsuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina (GESICA) and Estudio Piloto Argentino de Muerte Subita y Amiodarona (EPAMSA) trials showed survival benefit of amiodarone in heart failure, whereas Congestive Heart Failure-Survival Trial of Anti-arrhythmic Therapy (CHF-STAT) did not. Subsequent meta-analysis established a survival benefit of amiodarone in heart failure. Implanted Cardioverter Def ibrillators (ICDs) also give survival benefit to patients at risk of sudden death. In patients with a history of ventricular fibrillation or haemodynamically-compromising ventricular tachycardia, ICDs have been shown to be superior to anti-arrhythmic drugs, principally amiodarone. Further analysis has been undertaken to ascertain which patients are most likely to benefit from ICDs, as these are more expensive than treatment with amiodarone. Patients with severely depressed ejection fractions should be the first to be considered for ICDs. A new indication for amiodarone is atrial fibrillation or flutter. Amiodarone is effective in chronic and recent onset atrial fibrillation and orally or iv. for atrial fibrillation after heart surgery. In atrial fibrillation amiodarone is more than or equi-effective with flecainide, quinidine, racemic sotalol, propafenone and diltiazem and therefore should be considered for first line therapy. Amiodarone is also safe and effective in controlling refractory tachyarrhythmias in infants and is safe after cardiac surgery.     

盐酸胺碘酮联合盐酸贝那普利治疗阵发性房颤的临床观察

目的探讨盐酸胺碘酮联合盐酸贝那普利治疗阵发性心房颤动(房颤)的临床疗效。方法将63例发作频繁的阵发性房颤患者随机分为研究组33例和对照组30例。对照组在规范治疗原发病及有效抗凝治疗基础上单用盐酸胺碘酮治疗;研究组在对照组治疗基础上加用盐酸贝那普利治疗。2组均治疗随访12个月,比较2组临床疗效和治疗前、后左心房内径。结果研究组总有效率为93.9%,高于对照组的76.6%,且治疗后左心房内径小于治疗前和对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论盐酸胺碘酮联合盐酸贝那普利治疗阵发性房颤,对预防房颤的复发和持续性房颤的发生疗效显著,并能缩短左心房内径,延缓左心房扩大,临床疗效优于单用盐酸胺碘酮。