Bellandi F, Simonetti I, Leoncini M, Frascarelli F, Giovannini T, Maioli M, Dabizzi R P
Division of Cardiology, Misericordia e Dolce Hospital, Prato, Italy.
Am J Cardiol. 2001 Sep 15;88(6):640-5. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(01)01806-9.
This study was performed to evaluate, using a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled protocol, the long-term efficacy and safety of propafenone and sotalol in maintaining sinus rhythm after conversion of recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). The maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with recurrent AF has several potential benefits, the most important being a reduced risk of thromboembolic events. Three hundred patients with recurrent AF (> or = 4 episodes in the last year) and AF at enrollment lasting < 48 hours were randomized to receive either propafenone (mean daily dose 13 +/- 1.5 mg/kg; 102 patients), sotalol (mean daily dose 3 +/- 0.4 mg/kg; 106 patients), or placebo (92 patients). After 1-year follow-up, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the proportion of patients remaining in sinus rhythm were comparable between propafenone (63%) and sotalol (73%) and superior to placebo (35%; p = 0.001 vs both drugs). Symptomatic recurrences occurred later with propafenone and sotalol than with placebo. Nine patients (9%) in the propafenone group, 11 (10%) in the sotalol group, and 3 (3%) in the placebo group discontinued therapy due to adverse effects. Malignant nonfatal arrhythmias due to proarrhythmic effects were documented with sotalol only, and occurred < 72 hours from the beginning of therapy in 4 patients (4%). During recurrences, the ventricular rate was significantly reduced in patients taking propafenone and sotalol (p = 0.001 for both drugs vs placebo). The likelihood of remaining in sinus rhythm during follow-up was higher in younger patients with smaller left atrial size and without concomitant heart disease. In patients with recurrent symptomatic AF, propafenone and sotalol are not significantly different from each other and are superior to placebo in maintaining sinus rhythm at 1 year. Recurrences occur later and tend to be less symptomatic with propafenone and sotalol compared with placebo.
本研究采用随机双盲、安慰剂对照方案,评估普罗帕酮和索他洛尔在复发性症状性心房颤动(AF)转复后维持窦性心律的长期疗效和安全性。复发性AF患者维持窦性心律有若干潜在益处,其中最重要的是降低血栓栓塞事件风险。300例复发性AF患者(过去一年发作≥4次)且入组时AF持续时间<48小时,被随机分为接受普罗帕酮(平均日剂量13±1.5mg/kg;102例患者)、索他洛尔(平均日剂量3±0.4mg/kg;106例患者)或安慰剂(92例患者)治疗。经过1年随访,普罗帕酮组(63%)和索他洛尔组(73%)窦性心律维持患者比例的Kaplan-Meier估计值相当,且优于安慰剂组(35%;与两种药物相比,p=0.001)。普罗帕酮和索他洛尔组症状性复发出现时间晚于安慰剂组。普罗帕酮组9例(9%)、索他洛尔组11例(10%)、安慰剂组3例(3%)患者因不良反应停药。仅索他洛尔记录到致心律失常作用导致的恶性非致命性心律失常,4例(4%)患者在治疗开始后<72小时发生。复发期间,服用普罗帕酮和索他洛尔的患者心室率显著降低(两种药物与安慰剂相比,p均=0.001)。随访期间窦性心律维持可能性在左心房较小且无合并心脏病的年轻患者中更高。在复发性症状性AF患者中,普罗帕酮和索他洛尔在维持窦性心律方面彼此无显著差异,且在1年时优于安慰剂。与安慰剂相比,普罗帕酮和索他洛尔复发出现时间晚且症状往往较轻。