胺碘酮不同给药途径对阵发性心房颤动患者的疗效及安全性

目的观察胺碘酮不同给药途径对阵发性心房颤动(简称房颤)的疗效及安全性。方法128例阵发性房颤患者随机分成两组,A组:胺碘酮5mg/kg静脉注射15min,接着以1.5mg/min的速度静脉滴注6h,再以0.7～1mg/min静脉滴注24～48h,同时口服胺碘酮200mg/d。B组:胺碘酮600mg/d。给药后心电及血压监测48h。比较两组转复时间及24h,48h,7天,1个月的转复率。结果两组房颤转复率没有差别(P>0.05)。A组的房颤转复时间明显缩短(734±128minvs1428±242min,P<0.05)。给药后7天、1个月两组未转复仍保持房颤患者的心室率明显降低(P<0.05)。A组的血压在给药后24h内明显下降,而B组的血压一直保持稳定。A组有5例浅静脉炎。结论胺碘酮静脉给药可显著缩短房颤的转复时间,但增加低血压及浅静脉炎的风险。     

静脉及口服胺碘酮重叠应用治疗器质性心脏病心房颤动伴快速心室率的临床疗效

观察重叠应用静脉及口服胺碘酮治疗器质性心脏病阵发心房颤动 (简称房颤 )伴快速心室率的临床疗效及安全性。 36例器质性心脏病合并房颤的患者 ,男 2 2例、女 14例 ,年龄 6 5 .3± 11.5 (49～ 80 )岁。房颤发作时心室率142 .5± 2 5 .2 (12 0～ 176 )次 /分 ,先给予静脉负荷量胺碘酮 (15 0～ 30 0mg)后 ,继之以 6 0 0 μg/min静脉点滴维持 48h ,同时口服胺碘酮 6 0 0mg/d治疗。结果 :36例患者用药后 30min、1,2 ,2 4,48h心室率分别为 12 4.1± 11.5 ,113.3±8.6 ,10 5 .1± 8.2 ,92 .7± 8.5 ,88.6± 9.4次 /分 ,较用药前明显下降 (P <0 .0 1)。 30例 (83 .3% )患者转复为窦性心律 ,于 2h ,2～ 2 4h ,2 4～ 48h ,2～ 7d转复率分别为 11.1%、2 7.8%、2 2 .2 %和 2 2 .2 %。未转复组患者左房径大于转复组(P <0 .0 5 ) ,而射血分数明显低于转复组 (P <0 .0 5 ) ,这可能是 6例患者未转复的原因。 2例患者用药后出现长RR间期 ,1例出现窦性心动过缓 ,1例出现双手震颤 ,经减药或停药后恢复。结论 :静脉及口服胺碘酮重叠应用治疗器质性心脏病房颤是有效和安全的。     

静脉滴注胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死伴快速房颤的临床疗效及安全性

目的　观察静脉滴注胺碘酮在急性心肌梗死 (AMI)伴快速房颤患者临床疗效。方法　19例AMI患者伴新近发生快速房颤 ,静脉应用胺碘酮 ,静脉负荷量后 ,继以静点维持观察房颤转复及心室率控制及副作用。结果　 19例患者用药后 15min ,1h ,2h ,2 4h心室率分别为 (132 1± 17 4)次 分 ;(118 5± 15 0 )次 分 ;(10 8 2± 18 6 )次 分 ;(89 6± 2 3 7)次 分 ,较用药前 (149 7± 19 7)次 分明显下降。其中 14例患者 (73 6 % )在 2 4h内转为窦性心律 ,3例患者用药后出现长间歇 ,1例出现窦缓 ,经临时停药或减量后恢复。结论　静脉应用胺碘酮治疗AMI并发的快速房颤是有效及安全的     

大剂量静脉和口服胺碘酮治疗快速心房颤动临床观察

观察静脉、口服胺碘酮治疗快速心房颤动(简称房颤)的临床疗效及安全性。48例快速房颤患者首先给予胺碘酮150mg静脉推注之后以1mg/min静脉维持6h,改为0.5mg/min静脉点滴24～48h;同时用药当天给予口服胺碘酮1200mg,第二天为600mg,3天后改为200mg/d维持。结果:24h内房颤转复9例,转复率39.6%;3天内45例转复率93.8%。应用胺碘酮后心室率明显下降,随时间延长,呈减慢趋势。结论:负荷静脉、口服胺碘酮用药治疗快速房颤可明显减慢心室率,转复房颤安全有效。     

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。     

小剂量胺碘酮转复非瓣膜病房颤的疗效

目的:观察小剂量胺碘酮转复非瓣膜病的房颤的疗效及安全性。方法:选用27例住院非瓣膜病的房颤患者,常规予以阿斯匹林75 mg,每日1次,2周;口服胺碘酮0.2,每日3次,1周,0.2,每日2次,2周,复律后维持量0.2,每日1次或隔日1次。服药前常规检查心电图、超声心动图,测左房内径,服药后3、7、14日检查心电图。结果:20例患者转复为窦律,成功率74.1％,2例在3天内转复,14例在3～7天内转复,3例在第7～14天转复,1例在14～21天转复,成功复律房颤患者病程平均为2.13±3.75月,未成功复律患者为6.55±5.52月(P<0、001);前者左房内径35.11±6.12mm,后者为46.12±8.83(P<0.001)。结论:小剂量胺碘酮转复非瓣膜病的房颤成功率高,副作用小。     

口服负荷量普罗帕酮转复新近发生的心房颤动

目的研究口服负荷量普罗帕酮转复新近发生的非瓣膜病心房颤动(房颤)的临床疗效和安全性.方法有症状就诊的房颤患者61例,最近房颤持续发作在48h之内,既往无心力衰竭表现,本次发作不伴急性心肌缺血和其他急性心外病症,临床排除心脏瓣膜病、预激综合征、病态窦房结综合征及甲状腺机能亢进.随机分为口服负荷量普罗帕酮组和静脉毛花甙C组.普罗帕酮组顿服负荷量普罗帕酮450mg(2例体重过轻者给以300mg).毛花甙C组采用0.4mg静脉小壶滴人,若4h仍未转复则追加0.2mg.所有患者均在心电监护下观察心电、血压及症状变化,记录从服药到转复为窦律的时间.比较两组4h和8h的转复率和转复时间.结果普罗帕酮组共31例,4h转复17例(54.8%),平均转复时间(1.6±0.2)h;4～8h转复6例(19.4%),未转复成功8例的房颤持续时间明显长于转复成功者(P<O.01),未发现明显副作用.静脉毛花甙c组共30例,4h内转复8例(26.7%),平均转复时间(2.7±0.9)h;4～8h转复5例(16.7%).两组比较4h内普罗帕酮组房颤转复率明显高于毛花甙c组(P<0.05),4h内的平均转复时间亦有明显差异(P<O.01).结论对于新近发生的(持续发作48h之内)、不伴心功能不全和急性心肌缺血及其他急性心外病症的非瓣膜病房颤患者,口服负荷量普罗帕酮是一个快速、方便、安全的转复方法.     

缬沙坦与胺碘酮合用对轻中度高血压合并房颤患者复律及复律后窦律维持作用的研究

目的观察缬沙坦与胺碘酮合用对轻中度高血压(140 mmHg≤收缩压<180 mmHg和/或90 mmHg≤舒张压<110 mmHg)合并房颤(持续时间≤1年)患者复律及复律后窦律维持的作用。方法轻中度高血压合并房颤患者174例,随机分成A组(缬沙坦+胺碘酮)87例和B组(氨氯地平+胺碘酮)87例,观察两组口服胺碘酮6个月内房颤复律率,以及房颤复律后6个月内窦律维持率,同时观察两组血压控制水平。结果两组患者口服胺碘酮6个月内房颤复律率有分离趋势,A组高于B组,但无显著性差异。房颤复律后6个月内窦律维持观察,A组高于B组,3个月内差异无显著性,3个月后差异有显著性(P<0.05);窦律维持平均时间A组(159.2±47.1)d,B组(138.0±61.8)d(P<0.05)。两组患者血压控制水平12个月内无显著性差异。结论缬沙坦与胺碘酮合用对轻中度高血压合并房颤患者6个月内房颤复律作用无明显优于氨氯地平与胺碘酮合用;对房颤复律后6个月内窦律维持作用优于氨氯地平与胺碘酮合用,其作用独立于降压作用之外。     

胺碘酮对特发性房颤心房重构逆转作用观察

目的 :探讨胺碘酮对特发性房颤的治疗及对逆转心房心肌重构的作用。方法 :选择 1998- 0 6～ 2 0 0 0 - 0 7住院的特发性房颤患者 （除外房颤持续时间小于 6月和阵发性房颤间隔小于 1月 ,每次持续时间少于 48h者 ） 94例。随机分为胺碘酮治疗组 32例 ,普罗帕酮治疗组 32例及安慰剂组 30例。治疗前后行心电图、心脏超声、肝、肾功及甲状腺功能检查。出院后嘱患者 1,3,6 ,12月复查上述项目 1次。结果 :胺碘酮与普罗帕酮治疗组 ,均可使特发性房颤复律 ,但胺碘酮组较普罗帕酮组复律时间稍长 （约 1周 ） ,维持窦性心律的作用中 ,胺碘酮优于普罗帕酮组 ,12月后转复成功率分别为 81%和 5 6 % ,与安慰剂组自动复律 2 0 % （6 / 30 ）比较有显著差异 （P<0 .0 1）。随访 1,3,6 ,12月胺碘酮组左心房直径缩小 ,左心室舒张早期经二尖瓣血流的最高值 （E峰值 ）和左心房收缩时经二尖瓣血流的最大值 （A峰值 ）、E/ A增大。1,3,6 ,12月间比较有显著性差异 （P<0 .0 1） ,普罗帕酮组上述指标有所改善 ,但差异不显著 （P>0 .0 5 ） ,安慰剂组则无变化。结论 :胺碘酮对特发性房颤复律及对逆转心房心肌重构安全有效     

静脉注射胺碘酮与普罗帕酮转复阵发性心房颤动的疗效比较

目的对比研究静脉注射胺碘酮与普罗帕酮转复阵发性心房颤动(房颤)的作用.方法72例房颤持续时间＜48h的患者随机分为二组,胺碘酮组(n=36):胺碘酮150mg 生理盐水10ml,静注,10min注完;普罗帕酮组(n=36):普罗帕酮70mg 生理盐水10ml,静注,5～10min注完.观察30min若未转复可重复应用,最大累积量胺碘酮为450mg,普罗帕酮为210mg.结果转复率:胺碘酮组77.8%(28/36),普罗帕酮组75.0%(27/36),二组转复率比较差异无统计学意义(x2=0.0770,P＞0.05).转复时间:胺碘酮组(50.1±14.8)min,普罗帕酮组(39.6±13.7)min,二组比较差异有统计学意义(t=3 124,P＜0.01).结论胺碘酮和普罗帕酮对阵发性房颤均有较高的转复率,但转复时间普罗帕酮短于胺碘酮.     

The acute treatment of supraventricular tachycardia with endovenous amiodarone

In the present study we evaluated 35 patients of both sexes, aged 21-84, with newly occurring supraventricular tachyarrhythmias, 19 atrial fibrillation (AF), 6 atrial flutter (FL) and 10 paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardias (PSVT). They were treated with a single amiodarone infusion up to two hours after the restoration of a stable sinus rhythm or to a maximus dose of 2,400 mg (in 24 hours). Plasma amiodarone concentration and QTc were measured at the restoration of sinus rhythm and twelve hours after the amiodarone withdrawal. Amiodarone infusion restored a stable sinus rhythm in all 10 patients of the PSVT group (100%), in 5 of the FL group (83%) and in 16 of the AF group (84%). The average dose needed to stop PSVT was lesser than for AF and FL (M + SE: 473.3 +/- 36.88 vs 1842.1 + 259.6 vs 1548.8 +/- 345.5 mg; p less than 0.001). The average plasma amiodarone concentration at the restoration of sinus rhythm was 2450.4 +/- 175.9 SE ng/ml in all the tachyarrhythmias as a whole without any statistically significant difference among PSVT, FL and AF. Moreover no correlation exists between plasma amiodarone concentrations and the amount of amiodarone infused. QTc showed a statistically significant transient lengthening at the restoration of sinus rhythm, but not twelve hours after amiodarone withdrawal. In conclusion, a single dose of amiodarone is effective and safe in all newly occurring supraventricular tachyarrhythmias, without any important side effect and with a high therapeutic index in pharmacologic cardioversion as alternative treatment to cardioversion.     

Comparison of oral loading dose of propafenone and amiodarone for converting recent-onset atrial fibrillation. PARSIFAL Study Group

In patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), restoration of sinus rhythm is considered to be the first-line therapeutic option. Although this conversion might be obtained by direct-current shock or intravenous antiarrhythmic drugs, administration of an oral loading dose of class I or III antiarrhythmic drugs is more simple and convenient. This prospective, randomized, multicenter study compares the time to conversion to sinus rhythm obtained with an oral loading dose of propafenone or amiodarone. Patients with recent-onset AF (<2 weeks), without contraindications for the 2 drugs, were randomly assigned to be treated with propafenone (600 mg for the first 24 hours and if necessary a repeated dose of 300 mg for 24 hours) or amiodarone (30 mg/kg for the first 24 hours and if necessary a repeated dose of 15 mg/kg for 24 hours). Exact conversion time during the first 24 hours was determined by Holter monitoring. In each treatment group 43 patients with the same baseline characteristics were included. The median time for restoration of sinus rhythm was shorter (p = 0.05) in the propafenone (2.4 hours) than in the amiodarone (6.9 hours) group. After 24 hours (56% in the propofenone and 47% in the amiodarone group) and 48 hours, the same proportion of patients in the 2 groups recovered sinus rhythm (no serious adverse events were noticed). Thus, oral loading dose of propafenone or amiodarone was safe with a similar conversion rate of recent-onset AF. Propafenone had a faster action.     

替米沙坦联合胺碘酮维持阵发性心房颤动患者窦性心律的作用

目的 观察非瓣膜病阵发性心房颤动(房颤)的患者应用替米沙坦在房颤复律后维持窦性心律的疗效. 方法 76例非瓣膜病变阵发性房颤患者,随机分为胺碘酮对照组和替米沙坦+胺碘酮治疗组(联合治疗组),观察治疗后3、6、12个月两组患者左心房内径的变化及评价窦性心律的维持效果. 结果 治疗3、6个月两组左心房内径和窦性心律维持率差异无统计学意义(分别为t=0.04、0.51和t=0.03、1.12,均为P>0.05).治疗1年后,两组窦性心律的维持率分别为48.4%和73.5%,左心房内径分别为(37.26±4.85)mm和(34.38±3.85)mm,联合治疗组窦性心律维持率高于对照组(t=4.33,P<0.05),左房内径小于对照组(t=2.66,P<0.05). 结论 替米沙坦联合胺碘酮对阵发性房颤复律后窦性心律维持优于单用胺碘酮治疗,随着时间延长,维持窦性心律效果越好,可能与替米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.     

Intravenous amiodarone for cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common causes of hospital admission, with a prevalence of up to 5% of the population, increasing with advancing age. Emergency direct current cardioversion is the therapy of choice when arrhythmia leads to hemodynamic compromise, but in patients who are hemodynamically stable, antiarrhythmic drugs are usually given to restore sinus rhythm. HYPOTHESIS: The study was undertaken to assess the efficacy of intravenous amiodarone in cardioversion of recent-onset paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). No standard antiarrhythmic therapy has been accepted for pharmacologic cardioversion of AF. Amiodarone seems to be a promising candidate, but only few randomized trials are available and the results are inconsistent. METHODS: In all, 160 patients with AF lasting < 24 h were randomly assigned (2:1 fashion) to the amiodarone group (n = 106) receiving 5 mg/kg as a 30 min intravenous (i.v.) infusion, followed by i.v. infusion of 10 mg/kg during 20 h diluted in 1000 ml of 10% glucose with 20 IU of rapid-action insulin, 80 mEq of potassium chloride, and 8 g of magnesium sulphate (GIKM), or to the control group (n = 54) receiving 1000 ml of GIKM alone. Treatment was continued up to 20 h independent of sinus rhythm restoration. RESULTS: Sinus rhythm was restored 20 h after initiation of therapy in 88 (83%) patients in the amiodarone group and in 24 (44%) patients in the control group (p < 0.0001). The difference between efficacy of the two treatment modalities became significant already after 8 h of therapy (53 vs. 14 patients with sinus rhythm, respectively, p < 0.05). The mean dose of amiodarone administered until sinus rhythm restoration was 740 +/- 296 mg. The presence and the type of underlying heart disease did not influence the conversion rate in either group. In two patients (1.8%) treated with amiodarone, the return of sinus rhythm was preceded by asystole. CONCLUSION: Amiodarone is effective in the termination of AF lasting < 24 h. It may be particularly useful in patients with organic heart disease in whom class I antiarrhythmic agents may be contraindicated. During treatment, the heart rhythm should be monitored continuously.     

Use of enalapril to facilitate sinus rhythm maintenance after external cardioversion of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Results of a prospective and controlled study.

AIMS: This study aimed to assess whether enalapril could improve cardioversion outcome and facilitate sinus rhythm maintenance after conversion of chronic atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with chronic AF for more than 3 months were assigned to receive either amiodarone (200mg orally 3 times a day; group I: n=75) or the same dosage of amiodarone plus enalapril (10mg twice a day; group II: n=70) 4 weeks before scheduled external cardioversion. The end-point was the time to first recurrence of AF. In 125 patients (86.2%), AF was converted to sinus rhythm. Group II had a trend to a trend to a lower rate of immediate recurrence of AF than group I did (4.3% vs 14.7%, P=0.067). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a higher probability of group II remaining in sinus rhythm at 4 weeks (84.3% vs 61.3%, P=0.002) and at the median follow-up period of 270 days (74.3% vs 57.3%, P=0.021) than in group II. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of enalapril to amiodarone decreased the rate of immediate and subacute arrhythmia recurrences and facilitated subsequent long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion of persistent AF.     

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.     

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.     

厄贝沙坦与胺碘酮联合对风湿性心脏病持续性心房颤动转复患者的窦性心律维持作用

目的 研究风湿性心脏病持续性心房颤动(房颤)应用厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮的窦性心律(窦律)维持作用及复发的危险因素.方法 选择住院准备房颤复律且符合入选标准风湿性心脏病(风心病)瓣膜置换术后持续性房颤患者63例.随机分为对照组(31例)和试验组(32例).对照组给予胺碘酮,试验组用胺碘酮+厄贝沙坦.入选患者转复为窦律后即为试验起始时间,试验终点为转复后12个月.终点事件:症状或无症状房颤首次复发.结果 试验组窦律维持率显著高于对照组(68.7%与41.9%,P＜0.05).治疗12个月后,试验组左心房内径(LAD)显著小于对照组[(48.6±4.6)mm与(51.5±4.2)mm,P＜0.05].风心病持续性房颤复发与LAD(OR 1.242)和是否使用厄贝沙坦(OR 0.226)有关.结论 LAD是风心病持续性房颤复发的危险因素.厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮在风心病持续性房颤复律后维持窦律的疗效优于单用胺碘酮,并能延缓左心房扩大,防止房颤复发.