Suppr超能文献

[心房颤动:节律控制还是心率控制?]

[Atrial fibrillation: rhythm or rate control?].

作者信息

Le Heuzey Jean-Yves, Saïd Mina Ait, Paziaud Olivier

机构信息

Service de cardiologie A Hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou 75908 Paris.

出版信息

Rev Prat. 2002 Jun 15;52(12):1335-8.

Abstract

For many years it has been considered that it was necessary, whenever possible, to cardiovert atrial fibrillation and to maintain the sinus rhythm with antiarrhythmic drugs. There are many theoretical advantages to this maintenance of the sinus rhythm. Nevertheless the choice of the drugs used to maintain rhythm is often difficult and the therapeutical index of these drugs may be poor. It is necessary to avoid class I antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease. In these cases, only sotalol and amiodarone can be used. The safety index of these drugs being low, plain rate control with persistence of atrial fibrillation has been proposed as a treatment alternative. Several drugs may be used: calcium inhibitors, beta-blockers, digitalis. It is always necessary to associate anticoagulation: of course if rate control is chosen, but also if rhythm control is obtained, owing to the possible risk of relapse. Several trials of comparison between these 2 strategies have been recently performed. Available results show no clear superiority of a strategy above the other but there is a tendency towards a lower mortality in the rate control group.

摘要

多年来,人们一直认为,只要有可能,就有必要将房颤转复为窦性心律,并使用抗心律失常药物维持窦性心律。维持窦性心律有许多理论上的优势。然而,用于维持心律的药物选择往往很困难,而且这些药物的治疗指数可能不佳。对于充血性心力衰竭和冠状动脉疾病患者,必须避免使用I类抗心律失常药物。在这些情况下,只能使用索他洛尔和胺碘酮。由于这些药物的安全指数较低,有人提出将单纯控制心率并维持房颤作为一种治疗选择。可以使用几种药物:钙拮抗剂、β受体阻滞剂、洋地黄。始终需要联合抗凝治疗:当然,如果选择控制心率,而且即使获得了心律控制,也需要抗凝,因为存在复发的可能风险。最近已经进行了几项比较这两种策略的试验。现有结果表明,一种策略并不明显优于另一种,但控制心率组有死亡率较低的趋势。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验