Faber T S, Zehender M
Medizinische Universitätsklinik Freiburg im Breisgau, Abteilung für Kardiologie und Angiologie.
Ther Umsch. 2000 May;57(5):324-32. doi: 10.1024/0040-5930.57.5.324.
In patients with severe chronic heart failure, many deaths are sudden due to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Supraventricular arrhythmias such as paroxysmal or chronic atrial fibrillation may also cause serious complications in those patients due to acute loss of atrial contraction, pump failure during rapid ventricular response and embolic events. Two therapeutic strategies are currently available for therapy and prevention of malignant ventricular arrhythmias and subsequent sudden arrhythmic death: antiarrhythmic drug therapy and implantable defibrillators. However, selection of the most beneficial strategy for the individual patient to reduce the risk of sudden death remains a major challenge in cardiology. Betablockers exert a favorable antiarrhythmic action without increasing proarrhythmia, thus betablockers may serve as a basic medication in patients at risk for sudden death. However, the general use of antiarrhythmic drug therapy for symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias is not recommended, as these drugs have been shown to increase mortality in patients with severe congestive heart failure due to proarrhythmic or negative inotropic effects (e.g. class Ia antiarrhythmics). Even class III antiarrhythmic drugs such as amiodarone, which has been studied sufficiently in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, is not effective enough for significant reduction of cardiac mortality in patients with symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias and depressed ventricular function (e.g. EMIAT, CAMIAT). But as a positive result of available studies, amiodarone does not increase mortality in those patients. Dofetilide has also not been shown to prolong life significantly by suppressing malignant ventricular arrhythmias (DIAMOND-Study). In patients with symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias or aborted sudden death, ICD therapy has been proven to be superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in cardiac mortality reduction as a secondary prevention strategy (e.g. AVID, CASH, CIDS). For primary prevention of sudden arrhythmic death in high risk patients, 2 studies (MADIT, MUSST) have already demonstrated favorable results, decreasing mortality by ICD therapy in selected patient populations with partly-reduced ventricular function and unsustained but inducible ventricular tachycardias. This topic is, however, undergoing further evaluation by ongoing trials (e.g. MADIT II, SCD-HeFT). From available data, antiarrhythmic drug therapy in high risk patients is not justified on a routine basis, whereas ICD therapy as a secondary and perhaps primary prevention strategy will significantly reduce cardiac mortality in patients with severe heart failure. Sotalol, a class III antiarrhythmic agent, has recently been shown to reduce ICD-shock delivery which indicates that concomitant drug therapy in patients with an ICD device already implanted may be beneficial in terms of reducing ICD discharges due to ventricular and supraventricular tachycardias. In patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure, restitution of sinus rhythm is the primary therapeutic goal which can be safely achieved by amiodarone and dofetilide (DIAMOND). In the latter, continuous monitoring of the patient is mandatory because of increased risk of torsade de pointes arrhythmias during the first days of drug administration. In patients with chronic atrial fibrillation rate control and anticoagulation with warfarin is the primary therapeutic option, which can be achieved with either drug treatment (Digoxin, betablockers, amiodarone) or by His bundle ablation with subsequent pacemaker insertion.
在重度慢性心力衰竭患者中,许多死亡是由危及生命的室性心律失常导致的猝死。室上性心律失常,如阵发性或慢性心房颤动,也可能因心房收缩突然丧失、快速心室反应期间的泵衰竭和栓塞事件而在这些患者中引起严重并发症。目前有两种治疗策略可用于治疗和预防恶性室性心律失常及随后的心律失常性猝死:抗心律失常药物治疗和植入式除颤器。然而,为个体患者选择最有益的策略以降低猝死风险仍然是心脏病学中的一项重大挑战。β受体阻滞剂可发挥良好的抗心律失常作用而不增加促心律失常作用,因此β受体阻滞剂可作为猝死风险患者的基础用药。然而,不推荐对有症状的室性心律失常常规使用抗心律失常药物治疗,因为这些药物已被证明会因促心律失常或负性肌力作用(如Ia类抗心律失常药物)而增加重度充血性心力衰竭患者的死亡率。即使是III类抗心律失常药物,如胺碘酮,虽然已在左心室功能不全患者中进行了充分研究,但对于有症状的室性心律失常和心室功能降低的患者(如EMIAT、CAMIAT研究),其降低心脏死亡率的效果也不够显著。但现有研究的一个积极结果是,胺碘酮不会增加这些患者的死亡率。多非利特也未被证明通过抑制恶性室性心律失常能显著延长生命(DIAMOND研究)。在有症状的室性心律失常或心脏骤停复苏的患者中,作为二级预防策略,植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)治疗已被证明在降低心脏死亡率方面优于抗心律失常药物治疗(如AVID、CASH、CIDS研究)。对于高危患者心律失常性猝死的一级预防,两项研究(MADIT、MUSST)已显示出良好结果,ICD治疗可降低部分心室功能降低且有非持续性但可诱发室性心动过速的特定患者群体的死亡率。然而,这个主题正在通过正在进行的试验(如MADIT II、SCD-HeFT)进行进一步评估。根据现有数据,高危患者常规进行抗心律失常药物治疗是不合理的,而ICD治疗作为二级甚至一级预防策略将显著降低重度心力衰竭患者的心脏死亡率。索他洛尔是一种III类抗心律失常药物,最近已被证明可减少ICD电击次数,这表明对于已植入ICD装置的患者,联合药物治疗在减少因室性和室上性心动过速导致的ICD放电方面可能有益。在阵发性心房颤动和充血性心力衰竭患者中,恢复窦性心律是主要治疗目标,胺碘酮和多非利特可安全实现这一目标(DIAMOND研究)。对于后者,由于在给药的头几天发生尖端扭转型室性心律失常的风险增加,必须对患者进行持续监测。在慢性心房颤动患者中,控制心率并用华法林抗凝是主要治疗选择,这可以通过药物治疗(地高辛、β受体阻滞剂、胺碘酮)或通过希氏束消融并随后植入起搏器来实现。