Suppr超能文献

胺碘酮或植入式心脏复律除颤器用于治疗充血性心力衰竭。

Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure.

作者信息

Bardy Gust H, Lee Kerry L, Mark Daniel B, Poole Jeanne E, Packer Douglas L, Boineau Robin, Domanski Michael, Troutman Charles, Anderson Jill, Johnson George, McNulty Steven E, Clapp-Channing Nancy, Davidson-Ray Linda D, Fraulo Elizabeth S, Fishbein Daniel P, Luceri Richard M, Ip John H

机构信息

Seattle Institute for Cardiac Research, Seattle, WA 98103, USA.

出版信息

N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 20;352(3):225-37. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043399.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Sudden death from cardiac causes remains a leading cause of death among patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). Treatment with amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been proposed to improve the prognosis in such patients.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 2521 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III CHF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35 percent or less to conventional therapy for CHF plus placebo (847 patients), conventional therapy plus amiodarone (845 patients), or conventional therapy plus a conservatively programmed, shock-only, single-lead ICD (829 patients). Placebo and amiodarone were administered in a double-blind fashion. The primary end point was death from any cause.

RESULTS

The median LVEF in patients was 25 percent; 70 percent were in NYHA class II, and 30 percent were in class III CHF. The cause of CHF was ischemic in 52 percent and nonischemic in 48 percent. The median follow-up was 45.5 months. There were 244 deaths (29 percent) in the placebo group, 240 (28 percent) in the amiodarone group, and 182 (22 percent) in the ICD group. As compared with placebo, amiodarone was associated with a similar risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.06; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.53) and ICD therapy was associated with a decreased risk of death of 23 percent (0.77; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.007) and an absolute decrease in mortality of 7.2 percentage points after five years in the overall population. Results did not vary according to either ischemic or nonischemic causes of CHF, but they did vary according to the NYHA class.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with NYHA class II or III CHF and LVEF of 35 percent or less, amiodarone has no favorable effect on survival, whereas single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy reduces overall mortality by 23 percent.

摘要

背景

心脏原因导致的猝死仍然是充血性心力衰竭(CHF)患者的主要死因。已有人提出使用胺碘酮或植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)进行治疗以改善此类患者的预后。

方法

我们将2521例纽约心脏协会(NYHA)心功能II级或III级、左心室射血分数(LVEF)为35%或更低的CHF患者随机分为三组,分别接受CHF常规治疗加安慰剂(847例患者)、常规治疗加胺碘酮(845例患者)或常规治疗加保守程控的单腔仅电击ICD(829例患者)。安慰剂和胺碘酮采用双盲方式给药。主要终点是任何原因导致的死亡。

结果

患者的LVEF中位数为25%;70%为NYHA心功能II级,30%为III级CHF。CHF的病因中52%为缺血性,48%为非缺血性。中位随访时间为45.5个月。安慰剂组有244例死亡(29%),胺碘酮组有240例(28%),ICD组有182例(22%)。与安慰剂相比,胺碘酮的死亡风险相似(风险比,1.06;97.5%置信区间,0.86至1.30;P=0.53),而ICD治疗使死亡风险降低23%(0.77;97.5%置信区间,0.62至0.96;P=0.007),在总体人群中五年后死亡率绝对降低7.2个百分点。结果在CHF的缺血性或非缺血性病因方面没有差异,但在NYHA心功能分级方面存在差异。

结论

在NYHA心功能II级或III级、LVEF为35%或更低的CHF患者中,胺碘酮对生存率没有有益影响,而单腔仅电击ICD治疗可使总体死亡率降低23%。

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