Grönefeld Gerian C, Li Yi-Gang, Hohnloser Stefan H
Abteilung Kardiologie, Medizinische Klinik IV, Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main.
Herz. 2002 Jun;27(4):329-44. doi: 10.1007/s00059-002-2390-7.
Despite the increasing availability of nonpharmacological treatment options for atrial fibrillation, drug therapy targeted at restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm, or aimed at symptomatic ventricular rate control remains the mainstay of therapy for the majority of patients.
Available data suggest that these two treatment approaches yield similar responder rates with regard to symptomatic improvement.
Detailed results from major prospective studies investigating the prognostic effects of different atrial fibrillation treatment modalities are expected to become available soon. At present, however, the choice of the primary treatment strategy, i.e. rate control or rhythm control, still remains upon the clinical decision and expertise of the treating physician. Cardioversion by means of external biphasic shock delivery has shown to effectively convert atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm in more than 90% of patients. Pharmacological cardioversion, in contrast, has a far lower success rate and may be followed by severe complications mandating in-hospital administration with the majority of drug regimens. For the maintenance of sinus rhythm, the proarrhythmic side effects of Class I antiarrhythmic drugs currently limit their use to those patients without any structural heart disease. Clinical investigation of newer "pure" Class III drugs have shown to excite considerable prolongation of ventricular repolarization duration resulting in a significant risk for torsade-de-pointes tachycardia. Betablockers are beneficial in many clinical situations associated with the occurrence of atrial fibrillation, such as heart failure, arterial hypertension and coronary artery disease. These substances, however, do not seem to improve cardioversion rates and their effect in maintaining sinus rhythm is only moderate. Patients with structural heart disease in whom maintenance of sinus rhythm is strongly desired, therefore, are left to amiodarone therapy. The cardiac safety profile as well as the proven effectiveness are unsurpassed by any other available drug at present. This paper reviews major studies published during the last decade implementing recent guidelines regarding pharmacological rate control, cardioversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm and the approach towards patients suffering from paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
尽管心房颤动的非药物治疗选择越来越多,但针对恢复和维持窦性心律或旨在控制症状性心室率的药物治疗仍然是大多数患者治疗的主要手段。
现有数据表明,这两种治疗方法在症状改善方面的有效率相似。
预计很快就会有主要前瞻性研究的详细结果,这些研究将探讨不同心房颤动治疗方式的预后影响。然而,目前,主要治疗策略的选择,即心率控制或节律控制,仍然取决于治疗医生的临床判断和专业知识。通过外部双相电击进行心脏复律已显示在超过90%的患者中能有效将心房颤动转为窦性心律。相比之下,药物复律的成功率要低得多,并且大多数药物治疗方案可能会导致严重并发症,需要住院治疗。对于维持窦性心律,I类抗心律失常药物的促心律失常副作用目前限制了它们仅用于没有任何结构性心脏病的患者。新型“纯”III类药物的临床研究表明,它们会显著延长心室复极持续时间,从而导致尖端扭转型室性心动过速的重大风险。β受体阻滞剂在许多与心房颤动发生相关的临床情况下是有益的,如心力衰竭、动脉高血压和冠状动脉疾病。然而,这些药物似乎并不能提高复律率,并且它们在维持窦性心律方面的效果仅为中等。因此,强烈希望维持窦性心律的结构性心脏病患者只能接受胺碘酮治疗。目前,其心脏安全性以及已证实的有效性是任何其他可用药物都无法比拟的。本文回顾了过去十年发表的主要研究,这些研究实施了关于药物心率控制、复律和维持窦性心律的最新指南,以及对阵发性心房颤动患者的治疗方法。