胺碘酮联合美托洛尔治疗阵发性房颤的疗效及安全性评价

目的探讨胺碘酮联合美托洛尔在阵发性心房颤动（房颤）治疗中的疗效及其安全性。方法 112例阵发性房颤患者随机分为两组各56例,对照组在常规治疗基础上加用胺碘酮,观察组同时服用美托洛尔,疗程6个月。结果治疗后9、12个月观察组窦性心律维持率（73.2%、71.4%）明显高于对照组的42.9%、33.9%（P均〈0.01）;治疗后12个月观察组左心房内径（40±2）mm较对照组的（43±2）mm明显缩小（P〈0.05）。观察组、对照组发生低血压分别为1例和0例,窦性心动过缓均2例、Q-T间期延长均3例;两组治疗期间均未见肝肾功能和甲状腺功能异常。结论胺碘酮联合美托洛尔治疗阵发性房颤效果理想,可以有效地维持窦性心律、抑制左心房扩大。     

胺碘酮联合美托洛尔治疗阵发性心房颤动疗效观察

目的：探讨胺碘酮联合美托洛尔治疗阵发性心房颤动的临床效果。方法：将80例阵发性房颤患者随机分为治疗组和对照组，对照组予以胺碘酮治疗，治疗组在对照组胺碘酮治疗的基础上加用美托洛尔，疗程6个月，观察两组治疗阵发性心房颤动维持窦性心律的临床效果。结果：治疗组显效20例（50％），有效15例（37．5％），无效5例（12．5%）；对照组显效13例（32.5%），有效17例（42．5%），无效10例（25％）。两组对比差异有显著性（P〈0．05）。结论：治疗阵发性房颤维持窦性心律，胺碘酮联合美托洛尔较单用胺碘酮更加有效，为临床治疗阵发性房颤提供了新的方法。     

缬沙坦与胺碘酮联合治疗阵发性心房颤动的临床效果

目的探讨缬沙坦与胺碘酮联合治疗阵发性心房颤动维持窦性心律的临床效果。方法将44例阵发性房颤的患者随机分为治疗组和对照组，对照组予以胺碘酮治疗，治疗组在对照组的胺碘酮治疗基础上加用缬沙坦治疗，疗程1年，观察阵发性房颤再发率和缺血相关事件。结果治疗组阵发性房颤再次发作3例（14％），对照组阵发性房颤再次发作8例（34％），两组比较，P〈0．05；缺血事件的发生率：治疗组为5例（23.8％），对照组10例1（43.5％），两组比较P〈0.05。结论治疗阵发性心房颤动维持窦性心律，缬沙坦联合胺碘酮较单用胺碘酮更加有效，同时明显减少缺血相关事件发生，为临床治疗心房颤动及预防复发提供了新的思路。     

口服胺碘酮加倍他乐克转复老年人阵发性房颤的临床观察

目的观察口服胺碘酮加倍他乐克转复老年人阵发性房颤的疗效。方法将阵发性房颤病人随机分为两组,胺碘酮组38例,口服胺碘酮0.2 g,3次/d;胺碘酮加倍他乐克组39例,口服胺碘酮0.2 g,3次/d,倍他乐克12.5 mg,2～3次/d,或倍他乐克缓释片23.75 mg ,1～2次/d ,观察阵发性房颤转复情况、心率、QT间期及副作用。结果胺碘酮组48 h转复21例(占55.3%),胺碘酮加倍他乐克组48 h转复28例(占71.8%),P＜0.05。未转复者心率下降15%及32%,P＜0.05,QT间期两组与复率前相比无显著差异,两组均未发生严重副作用。结论口服胺碘酮加倍他乐克转复老年人阵发性房颤效果明显,副作用小,应用方便。     

胺碘酮单用与联合氯沙坦对阵发性心房颤动疗效比较

目的:评价氯沙坦联合胺碘酮对阵发性心房颤动(房颤)的疗效.方法:124例阵发性房颤随机分为Ⅰ组(胺碘酮)、Ⅰ组(胺碘酮+氯沙坦),观察房颤转复率、窦性心律维持率及左心房内径.结果:治疗后7 d房颤转复率Ⅰ组为84.48%,Ⅱ组为94.44%.随访1 a时窦性心律维持率Ⅰ组为70.24%,Ⅱ组为86.48%(P<0.05);左心房内径Ⅰ组为(38.25±1.52)mm,Ⅱ组为(35.12±1.46)mm(P<0.05).结论:氯沙坦联合胺碘酮对阵发性房颤的复律及复律后窦性心律的维持均优于单用胺碘酮,并能抑制左心房扩大.     

静脉应用胺碘酮和普罗帕酮转复阵发性房颤的临床观察

目的对比胺碘酮和普罗帕酮治疗阵发性心房颤动(房颤)的疗效及安全性。方法 40例阵发性房颤患者分别静脉用胺碘酮(胺碘酮组,20例),普罗帕酮(普罗帕酮组,20例),观察各组房颤的转复情况、复律时间及药物不良反应。其中对用普罗帕酮无效者再次予胺碘酮治疗,3例房颤转复,但未计入胺碘酮治疗有效组。结果胺碘酮组转复有效率优于普罗帕酮组(84.6%vs50.0%,P<0.05),普罗帕酮组转复时间短于胺碘酮组〔(103±67)vs(172±51)min,P<0.01〕。结论对于阵发性房颤,胺碘酮转复疗效优于普罗帕酮,安全性相似,但转复时间明显短于胺碘酮。     

胺碘酮和毛花甙丙转复阵发性房颤的效果观察与护理

目的总结静脉用胺碘酮和毛花甙丙转复阵发性房颤即时疗效的监护与护理体会.方法将64例阵发性房颤患者随机分为胺碘酮组和毛花甙丙组进行总结分析.结果胺碘酮组转复阵发性房颤的疗效明显高于毛花甙丙组.结论加强对静脉用胺碘酮和毛花甙丙转复阵发性房颤的监护与护理观察至关重要.     

心脏术后心律失常应用胺碘酮针的疗效观察

【目的】观察胺碘酮针剂治疗心脏手术后合并心律失常的疗效及安全性。【方法】回顾分析80例风湿性心脏病和先天性心脏病术后合并阵发性室性心动过速、室性早搏或房颤的的患者,以胺碘酮针剂2~3mg/kg加入5%葡萄糖溶液10~20 ml,缓慢静脉注射,效果不明显者于30 min后再次静注1 mg/kg剂量,而后按5~10 mg/(kg.d)持续静脉滴注1~5 d,监测血压和心率的变化。【结果】胺碘酮治疗后有效率为95%,能较好的控制心率,且对血压影响不明显。【结论】胺碘酮针剂治疗心脏手术后合并阵发性室性心动过速或室性早搏、快速性房颤的疗效较好。     

老年心房颤动患者服用胺碘酮引起甲状腺功能减退临床分析

目的对老年心房颤动患者服用胺碘酮引起甲状腺功能减退(甲减)进行临床分析。方法对42例72~85岁老年心房颤动服用胺碘酮的患者进行了甲状腺功能的监测,于服药前及服用胺碘酮后30 d、90 d、180 d、360 d分别定期测定甲状腺激素(采用化学放光分析法测定TSH、FT3、FT4),观察服药后的甲状腺功能。结果至观察结束后共有7例(16.6%)患者出现甲状腺功能减低,观察至90 d时开始出现甲减(2例4.76%),其中以180天时发生率最高(3例,7.41%),全部患者均给予左甲状腺钠片治疗,其中3例停用胺碘酮,4例减量维持。结论老年心房颤动患者服用胺碘酮后甲减发生率较高,本观察为16.6%,因老年人症状不典型易被忽视,导致不良后果,特提起注意。     

胺碘酮治疗快速房颤85例分析

胺碘酮是临床常用治疗房颤的药物,2003-04~2006-11我院应用胺碘酮治疗快速房颤85例,疗效理想,现分析如下。1临床资料1.1一般资料本组均经心电图检查均为房颤,其中男42例,女43例,年龄60~82(71.5±10.2)岁。其中缺血性心肌病26例,风湿性心脏病9例,高血压性心脏病31例,扩张性心脏病8例,肺源性心脏病11例。阵发性房颤40例,持续性房颤45例。入院时HR 118~150次/m in,平均(146.3±22.5)次/m in。持续时间>1 h。常规检查EGG、胸片、电解质、甲状腺功能等,均排除:(1)甲状腺功能异常者;(2)碘过敏者;(3)心脏传导阻滞和心动过缓者;(4)肺纤维化和视力…     

胺碘酮治疗心房颤动

目的：研究胺碘酮治疗心房颤动的疗效。方法：用胺碘酮治疗心房颤动患者68例（阵发性心房颤动40例,持续性心房颤动28例）。结果：连续用药治疗6个月显示治疗有效率分别为92.5%、75%。治疗12个月有效率分别为85.3%、68%。结论：胺碘酮治疗心房颤动安全有效,副作用小,可作为首选药。     

胺碘酮对VVI起搏后心房颤动发生率的影响

目的：观察胺碘酮对VVI起搏后心房纤颤发生率的影响。方法；42例植入VVI型起搏器的缓慢型心律失常患者起搏后．分成2组；A组为植入VVI起搏器患者进行常规治疗，共21例；B组为在植入VVI起搏器后，按标准方案给予胺碘酮治疗，共21例。术后所有患者分别于出院后第1、6、12、24、36个月进行随访。结果：A组19例患者达到随访终点，8例（42．1％）发生慢性房颤；B组20例患者达到随访终点，3例（15．0％）发生慢性房颤。结论：胺碘酮对植入VVI型起搏器患者心房颤动的发生有明显的抑制作用。     

依那普利联合胺碘酮治疗阵发性房颤的临床观察

目的 观察依那普利联合胺碘酮治疗阵发性心房颤动的疗效.方法 71例阵发性心房颤动病人随机分为治疗组和对照组.治疗组35例,每日口服依那普利5 mg,胺碘酮0.2 g;对照组36例,每日口服胺碘酮0.2 g,共治疗2年.结果 治疗组2例、对照组7例发生持续性心房颤动(P<0.05).治疗组2例、对照组8例发生缺血性脑卒中(P<0.05).治疗组阵发性心房颤动发作次数较对照组显著减少.结论 依那普利联合胺碘酮较单用胺碘酮可显著减少阵发性心房颤动的发作.     

静脉及口服胺碘酮同时应用治疗充血性心力衰竭心房颤动伴快速心室率的临床分析

目的：探讨胺碘酮治疗充血性心力衰竭（CHF）心房颤动伴快速心室率的临床疗效。方法：将106例各种原因所致的房颤伴快速心室率的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,治疗组加用静脉负荷量胺碘酮150 mg后,再以1000μg/min静脉点滴维持6小时,500μg/min静滴18小时。同时口服胺碘酮0.2,3次/d,1周;再0.2,2次/d,1周以后以0.2,1次/d至观察终点,随诊为12个月。结果：治疗组53例使用胺碘酮治疗可显著增加抗心律失常有效性,改善左室射血分数,减少心力衰竭再住院率,42例患者转复为室性心律。结论：静脉及口服胺碘酮同时应用治疗充血性心力衰竭房颤是有效和安全的。     

胺碘酮联合美托洛尔治疗阵发性心房颤动远期疗效观察

目的:观察胺碘酮联合美托洛尔治疗阵发性心房颤动的远期临床疗效。方法:将收入院的146例阵发性心房颤动患者,随机分成胺碘酮组73例和胺碘酮联合美托洛尔组73例,比较治疗的有效率及不良反应。结果:联合用药组各时期治疗总有效率均高于胺碘酮组,随着时间的延长两组的有效率均下降。结论:胺碘酮联合美托洛尔治疗阵发性心房颤动安全有效。     

胺碘酮治疗心脏瓣膜置换术后心房颤动患者临床疗效的Meta分析

目的探讨胺碘酮治疗心脏瓣膜置换术后心房颤动患者的临床效果,旨在为提高瓣膜置换术后心房颤动患者疗效提供参考依据。方法计算机检索PubMed、Web of Science、WILEY医学及护理学科库、Cochrane Library、CNKI、万方数据库、维普数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库,查找自建库至2019年9月24日有关胺碘酮治疗心脏瓣膜置换术后心房颤动患者临床疗效的随机对照试验(RCT)。经过2名研究员独立文献筛选、文献质量评价后提取相关数据,采用Revman 5.3软件进行定量综合分析。结果共纳入7篇文献,其中中文文献6篇,英文文献1篇;累计710例患者,试验组363例,对照组347例。采用Revman 5.3软件行定量合成,结果显示,使用胺碘酮治疗瓣膜置换术后心房颤动能够提高心房颤动转复率(RR=1.36,95%CI:1.20~1.54,P<0.05),且窦性心律维持率提高(RR=1.41,95%CI:1.16~1.72,P=0.002),其可以缩短ICU监护时间(MD=-1.09,95%CI:-1.32^-0.86,P<0.05)和总住院天数(MD=-3.92,95%CI:-4.25^-3.59,P<0.05)。结论胺碘酮治疗瓣膜置换术后心房颤动可以提高心房颤动转复率和窦性心律维持率,缩短ICU监护时间和总住院天数,值得临床推广应用。     

"Torsade de pointes" in patients with structural heart disease and atrial fibrillation treated with amiodarone, beta-blockers, and digitalis

Amiodarone is one of the most efficient and safe antiarrhythmic drugs in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Yet, though rare, proarrhythmic effects remain a clinical problem. We present three cases of amiodarone-associated "Torsade de pointes" tachycardia (Tdp) in patients treated concomitantly with heart rate controlling medication for AF. Amiodarone loading therapy was started for the treatment of tachyarrhythmic AF in all the three patients. All presented with a history of coronary heart disease, resulting in a severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in two patients. One received oral amiodarone loading, in the others, amiodarone was administered intravenously because of hemodynamically relevant AF episodes. Amiodarone therapy was combined with a heart rate controlling medication including a β-blocking agent and digitalis in all the cases. All the subjects suffered from clinically relevant Tdp in the early run after initiation of amiodarone loading (max. 48 hours). The mean QTc in all patients before induction of Tdp was prolonged. The present case reports imply that amiodarone in combination with β-blocker/digitalis therapy may be associated with an elevated proarrhythmic risk in selected patients with structural heart disease and AF.     

静脉应用胺碘酮和普罗帕酮治疗急性心房颤动的疗效分析

目的：比较静脉应用胺碘酮和普罗帕酮治疗急性心房颤动的复律疗效。方法：将2008年1月至2013年10月我科收治的急性心房颤动患者252例观察组和对照组各126例,观察组应用胺碘酮150mg加入5％葡萄糖注射液20ml内静脉推注,15min推完,继之胺碘酮300mg加入5％葡萄糖射液44ml,予1mg／min的速度微泵泵人,6h后予0．5mg／min的速度微泵泵人,维持48h,复律成功后,口服胺碘酮维持;对照组应用普罗帕酮70mg加入5％葡萄糖注射液20ml内静脉推注,15min推完,继之予0．5—1mg／min的滴速维持48h,复律成功后,口服普罗帕酮维持。治疗前及治疗后复查心电图评估疗效。结果：观察组总有效率78．57％明显高于普罗帕酮组的51．59％（P〈0．05）。结论：与普罗帕酮治疗急性心房颤动的疗效相比,静脉应用胺碘酮复律的起效快、疗效高。     

Efficacy of magnesium-amiodarone step-up scheme in critically ill patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation: a prospective observational study

Amiodarone is considered a first-choice antiarrhythmic drug in critically ill patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF). However, evidence supporting the use of this potentially toxic drug in critically ill patients is scarce. Magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) has shown to be effective for both rate and rhythm control, to act synergistically with antiarrhythmic drugs, and to prevent proarrhythmia. Treatment with MgSO4 may reduce the need for antiarrhythmic drugs such as amiodarone in critically ill patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation. The efficacy of a new institutional protocol was evaluated. Patients were treated with a new institutional protocol for new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients. An MgSO4 bolus (0.037 g/kg body weight in 15 minutes) was followed by continuous infusion (0.025 g/kg body weight/h). Intravenous amiodarone (loading dose 300 mg, followed by continuous infusion of 1200 mg/24 h) was given to those not responding to MgSO4 within 1 hour. Clinical response was defined as conversion to sinus rhythm or decrease in heart rate <110 beats/min. Sixteen of the 29 patients responded to MgSO4 monotherapy, whereas the addition of amiodarone was needed in 13 patients. Median (range) time until conversion to sinus rhythm after MgSO4 was 2 (1-45) hours. Median (range) conversion time in patients requiring amiodarone was 4 (2-78) hours, and median (range) conversion time in all patients was 3 (1-78) hours. The 24-hour conversion rate was 90%. Relapse atrial fibrillation was seen in 7 patients. The magnesium-amiodarone step-up scheme reduces the need for amiodarone, effectively converts new-onset atrial fibrillation into a sinus rhythm within 24 hours, and seems to be safe in critically ill patients.     

Hepatotoxicity during rapid intravenous loading with amiodarone: Description of three cases and review of the literature

OBJECTIVE: Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia after cardiac surgery. Amiodarone can effectively prevent and control postoperative atrial and ventricular fibrillation. Acute hepatic damage after intravenous amiodarone, which can be fatal, is not well recognized. We describe three cases of acute hepatocellular injury after intravenous amiodarone administration in critically ill patients. Another 25 published cases and six cases reported to the Swiss Pharmacovigilance Center (Swissmedic) are discussed. DESIGN: This study consisted of a series of three case reports and review of the literature. SETTING:: This study was conducted at an operative critical care unit at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. PATIENTS: Three hemodynamically compromised patients after open heart surgery developed significant increases of transaminases (up to more than 100-fold of the upper limit of normal) shortly after the introduction of intravenous amiodarone. INTERVENTIONS AND MEASUREMENT: Cessation of intravenous amiodarone and of other potentially hepatotoxic drugs. RESULTS: Liver parameters significantly improved or returned to normal in all three patients, even after start of oral amiodarone in two patients. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone is a highly effective antiarrhythmic agent for the treatment and prevention of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. Acute liver damage after intravenous amiodarone, possibly induced by the solubilizer polysorbate 80, is rare but potentially harmful. Amiodarone loading should therefore be adapted to the necessity of an immediate effect of the drug, and liver function should be monitored closely in critically ill patients. Oral maintenance therapy with amiodarone is possible, even in patients who developed liver disease during intravenous loading.