Lee J K, Klein G J, Krahn A D, Yee R, Zarnke K, Simpson C, Skanes A, Spindler B
Arrhythmia Monitoring Unit, University of Western Ontario, London Health Sciences Centre, Canada.
Am Heart J. 2000 Dec;140(6):871-7. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2000.111104.
Atrial fibrillation remains a frequent complication after heart surgery. The optimal strategy to treat the condition has not been established. Several retrospective studies have suggested that a primary rate-control strategy may be equivalent to a strategy that restores sinus rhythm.
Fifty patients with atrial fibrillation after heart surgery were randomly assigned to a strategy of antiarrhythmic therapy with or without electrical cardioversion or ventricular rate control. Both arms received anticoagulation with heparin overlapped with warfarin. The primary end point was time to conversion to sinus rhythm analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Atrial fibrillation relapse after the initial conversion was monitored in the hospital over a 2-month period.
There was no significant difference between an antiarrhythmic conversion strategy (n = 27) and a rate-control strategy (n = 23) in time to conversion to sinus rhythm (11.2 +/- 3. 2 vs 11.8 +/- 3.9 hours; P =.8). With the use of Cox multivariate analysis to control for the effects of age, sex, beta-blocker usage, and type of surgery, the antiarrhythmic strategy showed a trend toward reducing the time from treatment to restoration of sinus rhythm (P =.08). The length of hospital stay was reduced in the antiarrhythmic arm compared with the rate-control strategy (9.0 +/- 0.7 vs 13.2 +/- 2.0 days; P =.05). In-hospital relapse rates in the antiarrhythmic arm were 30% compared with 57% in the rate-control strategy (P =.24). There were no significant difference in relapse rates at 1 week (24% vs 28%), 4 weeks (6% vs 12%), and 6 to 8 weeks (4% vs 9%). At the end of the study, 91% of the patients in the rate-control arm were in sinus rhythm compared with 96% in the antiarrhythmic arm (P =.6).
This pilot study shows little difference between a rate-control strategy and a strategy to restore sinus rhythm. Regardless of strategy, most patients will be in sinus rhythm after 2 months. A larger randomized, controlled study is needed to assess the impact of restoration of sinus rhythm on length of stay.
心房颤动仍是心脏手术后常见的并发症。治疗该病症的最佳策略尚未确立。多项回顾性研究表明,主要的心率控制策略可能等同于恢复窦性心律的策略。
50例心脏手术后发生心房颤动的患者被随机分配至接受抗心律失常治疗(有无电复律)或心室率控制的策略组。两组均接受肝素与华法林重叠使用的抗凝治疗。主要终点是通过Kaplan-Meier方法分析的转为窦性心律的时间。在医院对初始转复后2个月内心房颤动复发情况进行监测。
抗心律失常转复策略组(n = 27)和心率控制策略组(n = 23)在转为窦性心律的时间上无显著差异(11.2±3.2小时对11.8±3.9小时;P = 0.8)。使用Cox多变量分析以控制年龄、性别、β受体阻滞剂使用情况和手术类型的影响后,抗心律失常策略显示出缩短从治疗至恢复窦性心律时间的趋势(P = 0.08)。与心率控制策略相比,抗心律失常组的住院时间缩短(9.0±0.7天对13.2±2.0天;P = 0.05)。抗心律失常组的院内复发率为30%,而心率控制策略组为57%(P = 0.24)。1周(24%对28%)、4周(6%对12%)和6至8周(4%对9%)时的复发率无显著差异。研究结束时,心率控制组91%的患者处于窦性心律,而抗心律失常组为96%(P = 0.6)。
这项初步研究表明心率控制策略与恢复窦性心律的策略之间差异不大。无论采用何种策略,大多数患者在2个月后将处于窦性心律。需要开展更大规模的随机对照研究以评估恢复窦性心律对住院时间的影响。