Martínez-Marcos F J, García-Garmendia J L, Ortega-Carpio A, Fernández-Gómez J M, Santos J M, Camacho C
Servicio de Cuidados Críticos-Urgencias, Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain.
Am J Cardiol. 2000 Nov 1;86(9):950-3. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(00)01128-0.
In a prospective, single-blind trial, we randomized 150 consecutive symptomatic patients with acute (< or = 48 hours' duration) atrial fibrillation to receive intravenous flecainide, propafenone, or amiodarone. Flecainide and propafenone were administered as a bolus dose of 2 mg/kg in 20 minutes. A second bolus dose of 1 mg/kg in 20 minutes was administered if conversion to sinus rhythm was not achieved after 8 hours. Amiodarone was administered as a bolus of 5 mg/kg in 20 minutes followed by a continuous infusion of 50 mg/hour. By the end of a 12-hour observation period, conversion to sinus rhythm was achieved in 45 patients (90%) in the flecainide group, 36 (72%) in the propafenone group, and 32 (64%) in the amiodarone group (p = 0.008 for the overall comparison, p = 0.002 for flecainide vs amiodarone, p = 0.022 for flecainide vs propafenone, and p = 0.39 for propafenone vs amiodarone). When compared with amiodarone, this higher reversion rate with flecainide was present from the first hour of the study period. However, only after administering the second bolus was there a significant difference between flecainide and propafenone. Median time to conversion to sinus rhythm was different among groups (p < 0.001), and it was lower in the flecainide (25 minutes; range 4 to 660) and propafenone (30 minutes; range 10 to 660) groups than in the amiodarone group (333 minutes; range 15 to 710; p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Flecainide, at the doses administered in this study, is more effective than propafenone and amiodarone for conversion of acute atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. Propafenone and amiodarone have similar conversion rates, although propafenone was faster in achieving the conversion to sinus rhythm.
在一项前瞻性单盲试验中,我们将150例连续的急性(持续时间≤48小时)有症状心房颤动患者随机分组,分别接受静脉注射氟卡尼、普罗帕酮或胺碘酮治疗。氟卡尼和普罗帕酮均以2mg/kg的推注剂量在20分钟内给药。如果8小时后未恢复窦性心律,则在20分钟内给予第二次1mg/kg的推注剂量。胺碘酮以5mg/kg的推注剂量在20分钟内给药,随后以50mg/小时的速度持续输注。在12小时观察期结束时,氟卡尼组45例患者(90%)恢复窦性心律,普罗帕酮组36例(72%),胺碘酮组32例(64%)(总体比较p=0.008,氟卡尼与胺碘酮比较p=0.002,氟卡尼与普罗帕酮比较p=0.022,普罗帕酮与胺碘酮比较p=0.39)。与胺碘酮相比,从研究期的第一个小时起,氟卡尼的转复率就更高。然而,仅在给予第二次推注后,氟卡尼和普罗帕酮之间才有显著差异。恢复窦性心律的中位时间在各组之间不同(p<0.001),氟卡尼组(25分钟;范围4至660分钟)和普罗帕酮组(30分钟;范围10至660分钟)低于胺碘酮组(333分钟;范围15至710分钟;两组比较p均<0.001)。在本研究中所使用的剂量下,氟卡尼在将急性心房颤动转复为窦性心律方面比普罗帕酮和胺碘酮更有效。普罗帕酮和胺碘酮的转复率相似,尽管普罗帕酮恢复窦性心律更快。