Brachmann J
Second Department of Medicine, Coburg Hospital, Germany.
Europace. 2000 Jul;1 Suppl C:C10-5.
The last decade has seen considerable changes in both attitude and approach to the management of arrhythmia. Much of this has resulted from trials such as the CAST (Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial) and the CASH (Cardiac Arrhythmia Study Hamburg), which demonstrated the potentially lethal consequences of using class I sodium channel blockers in patients with structural heart disease. The subsequent popularity of the class III agents and recognition that they are the best available therapy has led to the popularity of amiodarone and sotalol in the treatment of arrhythmia. Although these agents can achieve good efficacy in the suppression of atrial fibrillation their use is not without problems. Sotalol requires careful patient selection due to the risk of proarrhythmia and although cardiac effects are rare with amiodarone therapy, potentially serious non-cardiac adverse effects can limit the long-term use of this agent. Although treatment guidelines have helped to clarify our current knowledge and outline appropriate clinical application of antiarrhythmic agents, the need for antiarrhythmic agents which marry efficacy with improved safety and clinical applicability is apparent.
在过去十年中,心律失常的管理在态度和方法上都发生了相当大的变化。这很大程度上源于诸如CAST(心律失常抑制试验)和CASH(汉堡心律失常研究)等试验,这些试验证明了在结构性心脏病患者中使用I类钠通道阻滞剂可能产生的致命后果。随后III类药物的流行以及它们是现有最佳治疗方法的认知,使得胺碘酮和索他洛尔在心律失常治疗中受到欢迎。尽管这些药物在抑制房颤方面能取得良好疗效,但它们的使用并非没有问题。由于有致心律失常的风险,索他洛尔需要谨慎选择患者,并且尽管胺碘酮治疗很少出现心脏方面的影响,但潜在的严重非心脏不良反应可能会限制该药物的长期使用。尽管治疗指南有助于阐明我们目前的知识并概述抗心律失常药物的适当临床应用,但显然需要将疗效与更高的安全性和临床适用性相结合的抗心律失常药物。