Vaughan Williams E M
Hertford College, Oxford, United Kingdom.
J Clin Pharmacol. 1992 Nov;32(11):964-77. doi: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1992.tb03797.x.
Classification of antiarrhythmic actions is reviewed in the context of the results of the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trials, CAST 1 and 2. Six criticisms of the classification recently published (The Sicilian Gambit) are discussed in detail. The alternative classification, when stripped of speculative elements, is shown to be similar to the original classification. Claims that the classification failed to predict the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs for the selection of appropriate therapy have been tested by an example. The antiarrhythmic actions of cibenzoline were classified in 1980. A detailed review of confirmatory experiments and clinical trials during the past decade shows that predictions made at the time agree with subsequent results. Classification of the effects drugs actually have on functioning cardiac tissues provides a rational basis for finding the preferred treatment for a particular arrhythmia in accordance with the diagnosis.
在心律失常抑制试验(CAST 1和2)结果的背景下,对抗心律失常作用的分类进行了综述。详细讨论了最近发表的(《西西里策略》)该分类的六点批评意见。去掉推测性元素后的替代分类显示与原始分类相似。通过一个例子检验了关于该分类未能预测抗心律失常药物选择适当治疗疗效的说法。西苯唑啉的抗心律失常作用于1980年进行了分类。对过去十年的验证性实验和临床试验的详细综述表明,当时所做的预测与后续结果一致。根据诊断,对药物实际对正常运作的心脏组织产生的作用进行分类,为找到特定心律失常的首选治疗方法提供了合理依据。