Boriani Giuseppe, Diemberger Igor, Biffi Mauro, Martignani Cristian, Branzi Angelo
Institute of Cardiology, University of Bologna, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Drugs. 2004;64(24):2741-62. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200464240-00003.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common form of arrhythmia, carrying high social costs. It is usually first seen by general practitioners or in emergency departments. Despite the availability of consensus guidelines, considerable variations exist in treatment practice, especially outside specialised cardiological settings. Cardioversion to sinus rhythm aims to: (i) restore the atrial contribution to ventricular filling/output; (ii) regularise ventricular rate; and (iii) interrupt atrial remodelling. Cardioversion always requires careful assessment of potential proarrhythmic and thromboembolic risks, and this translates into the need to personalise treatment decisions. Among the many clinical variables that affect strategy selection, time from onset is crucial. In selected patients, pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset AF can be a safely used, feasible and effective approach, even in internal medicine and emergency departments. In most cases of recent-onset AF, pharmacological cardioversion provides an important--and probably more cost effective--alternative to electrical cardioversion, which can then be employed as a second-line therapy for nonresponders. Class IC agents (flecainide or propafenone), which can be safely used in hospitalised patients with recent-onset AF without left ventricular dysfunction, can provide rapid conversion to sinus rhythm after either intravenous administration or oral loading. Although intravenous amiodarone requires longer conversion times, it is still the standard treatment for patients with heart failure. Ibutilide also provides good conversion rates and could be used for AF patients with left ventricular dysfunction (were it not for high costs). For long-lasting AF most pharmacological treatments have only limited efficacy and electrical cardioversion remains the gold standard in this setting. However, a widely used strategy involves pretreatment with amiodarone in the weeks before planned electrical cardioversion: this provides optimal prophylaxis and can sometimes even restore sinus rhythm. Dofetilide may also be capable of restoring sinus rhythm in up to 25-30% of patients and can be used in patients with heart failure. The potential risk of proarrhythmia increases the need for careful therapeutic decision making and management of pharmacological cardioversion. The results of recent trials (AFFIRM [Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management] and RACE [Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation]) on rate versus rhythm control strategies in the long term have led to a generalised shift in interest towards rate control. Although carefully designed studies are required to better define the role of pharmacological rhythm control in specific AF settings, this alternative option remains a recommendable strategy for many patients, especially those in acute care.
心房颤动(AF)是最常见的心律失常形式,社会成本高昂。它通常首先由全科医生或在急诊科被发现。尽管有共识指南,但治疗实践中仍存在相当大的差异,尤其是在专科心脏病学环境之外。恢复窦性心律的目的是:(i)恢复心房对心室充盈/输出的贡献;(ii)使心室率规律化;(iii)中断心房重塑。复律始终需要仔细评估潜在的促心律失常和血栓栓塞风险,这就需要个性化治疗决策。在影响策略选择的众多临床变量中,发病时间至关重要。在选定的患者中,近期发作的房颤的药物复律即使在内科和急诊科也可以是一种安全使用、可行且有效的方法。在大多数近期发作的房颤病例中,药物复律为电复律提供了一种重要的——可能更具成本效益的——替代方法,电复律随后可作为无反应者的二线治疗方法。IC类药物(氟卡尼或普罗帕酮)可安全用于近期发作的房颤且无左心室功能障碍的住院患者,静脉给药或口服负荷后可快速转为窦性心律。虽然静脉注射胺碘酮需要更长的转复时间,但它仍然是心力衰竭患者的标准治疗方法。伊布利特也有良好的转复率,可用于有左心室功能障碍的房颤患者(若非成本高昂)。对于持续性房颤,大多数药物治疗的疗效有限,电复律在此情况下仍是金标准。然而,一种广泛使用的策略是在计划电复律前数周用胺碘酮进行预处理:这可提供最佳预防效果,有时甚至可恢复窦性心律。多非利特也可能使高达25% - 30%的患者恢复窦性心律,可用于心力衰竭患者。促心律失常的潜在风险增加了谨慎进行治疗决策和管理药物复律的必要性。近期关于长期心率与节律控制策略的试验(AFFIRM [心房颤动节律管理随访调查]和RACE [持续性心房颤动的心率控制与电复律])结果导致人们普遍将兴趣转向心率控制。尽管需要精心设计的研究来更好地界定药物节律控制在特定房颤情况下的作用,但这种替代选择对许多患者,尤其是急性护理患者而言仍是一种推荐策略。