Mabo P, Leclercq C, Pavin D
Département de cardiologie et maladies vasculaires, CHU, Rennes.
Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 2000 Feb;93 Spec No 2:23-8.
Ventricular arrhythmias are particularly common in cardiac failure and their mechanisms are very complex. The prevention of these ventricular arrhythmias is only worthwhile if it results in benefits in terms of reduction of the risk of sudden death and in improvement in life expectancy. However, the relationship between complex ventricular arrhythmias and sudden death is far from established. The first problem is, therefore, to select the patients at high risk of sudden death. Unfortunately, there are no reliable markers of arrhythmic risk; only patients at low risk can be reasonably well identified on clinical and haemodynamic assessment and the results of ambulatory and signal averaged ECG. When an antiarrhythmic treatment seems to be required, the choice is very limited in practice. There is no role for Class I antiarrhythmics to play in this indication. Amiodarone, with its complex electrophysiological profile enabling an interaction with all potential mechanisms of ventricular arrhythmias, is a first-line drug in cardiac failure because of its efficacy and good myocardial tolerance. However, the benefits of amiodarone therapy in terms of reduction of global mortality have not been demonstrated, especially in view of the discordance between the results of the GESICA and CHF STAT trials. On the other hand, the value of betablockers, whether conventional molecules like bisoprolol (CIBIS II study) or metoprolol (MERIT-HF study), or molecules with a special profile such as carvedilol, has been clearly established. In association with conventional diuretics and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, they reduce global mortality by about 35% and sudden death by 40%. However, the future possibly lies with non-pharmacological approaches such as the implantable defibrillator, at least in patients clearly identified as being at high risk of arrhythmic death, resuscitated from cardiorespiratory arrest due to documented ventricular fibrillation or presenting with haemodynamically poorly tolerated ventricular tachycardia. The automatic defibrillator could improve the prognosis of these patients, irrespective of their functional status (NYHA, Classes I, II or III). In practice, "rhythmological" management of cardiac failure cannot be dissociated from the haemodynamic and neuro-hormonal aspects of the affection, and only a multi-factorial approach is being realistic.
室性心律失常在心力衰竭中尤为常见,其机制非常复杂。只有在降低猝死风险和提高预期寿命方面带来益处时,预防这些室性心律失常才是值得的。然而,复杂室性心律失常与猝死之间的关系远未明确。因此,首要问题是选择猝死高危患者。不幸的是,尚无可靠的心律失常风险标志物;仅通过临床和血流动力学评估以及动态心电图和信号平均心电图结果,才能较为合理地识别低风险患者。当似乎需要抗心律失常治疗时,实际上选择非常有限。Ⅰ类抗心律失常药物在此适应证中无作用。胺碘酮具有复杂的电生理特性,能够与室性心律失常的所有潜在机制相互作用,因其疗效和良好的心肌耐受性,是心力衰竭的一线药物。然而,胺碘酮治疗在降低总体死亡率方面的益处尚未得到证实,尤其是鉴于GESICA试验和CHF STAT试验结果不一致。另一方面,β受体阻滞剂的价值已明确确立,无论是像比索洛尔(CIBIS II研究)或美托洛尔(MERIT-HF研究)这样的传统药物,还是像卡维地洛这样具有特殊特性的药物。与传统利尿剂和血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂联合使用时,它们可使总体死亡率降低约35%,猝死率降低40%。然而,未来可能在于非药物方法,如植入式除颤器,至少对于明确被认定为心律失常死亡高危、因记录到的心室颤动导致心肺骤停复苏或出现血流动力学耐受性差的室性心动过速的患者。自动除颤器可改善这些患者的预后,无论其功能状态如何(纽约心脏协会心功能分级Ⅰ、Ⅱ或Ⅲ级)。实际上,心力衰竭的“节律管理”不能与病情的血流动力学和神经激素方面分开,只有多因素方法才是现实的。