del Arco Carmen, Martín Alfonso, Laguna Pedro, Gargantilla Pedro
Arrhythmia Division, Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine, Madrid, Spain.
Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Nov;46(5):424-30. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.03.002. Epub 2005 May 31.
Limited information relative to the management of atrial fibrillation in the emergency department (ED) daily practice is available. This study evaluates current management of atrial fibrillation in this setting to identify areas for practice improvement.
This was a prospective multicenter observational study carried out in 12 EDs. Adults in whom atrial fibrillation was demonstrated in an ECG obtained in the ED were included. Clinical variables and atrial fibrillation management in the ED were prospectively collected by the treating physicians using a standardized questionnaire. Patients with rapid ventricular response (>100 beats/min) were considered eligible for rate control, and patients with recent-onset episodes (<48 hours) were eligible for rhythm control.
Of 1,178 patients, 41% presented with a rapid ventricular response and 21% had recent-onset episodes. Rhythm control was attempted in 42% of eligible patients, with antiarrhythmic drugs in 88% of cases (I-C drugs in 44% of patients; amiodarone in 43% of patients). Overall effectiveness of pharmacologic cardioversion was 63% (amiodarone 54.5%, flecainide 93%), whereas electrocardioversion was effective in 87.5% of cases. Rate control was performed in 68.3% of eligible patients (overall effectiveness 47.8%); digoxin was used in 67% of cases (effectiveness 45%). Both strategies were selected in 4.5% of cases, whereas no treatment for atrial fibrillation was performed in 60% of patients.
In our ED population, rate-control effectiveness is poor and rhythm control is not attempted in most recent-onset episodes. Methods to improve rate-control effectiveness, the selection of patients for rhythm control, and the use of electrocardioversion appear warranted.
关于急诊科日常实践中心房颤动管理的信息有限。本研究评估了这种情况下心房颤动的当前管理情况,以确定可改进的实践领域。
这是一项在12个急诊科进行的前瞻性多中心观察性研究。纳入在急诊科通过心电图证实为心房颤动的成年人。治疗医生使用标准化问卷前瞻性收集急诊科的临床变量和心房颤动管理情况。心室率快速反应(>100次/分钟)的患者被认为适合进行心率控制,近期发作(<48小时)的患者适合进行节律控制。
在1178例患者中,41%出现心室率快速反应,21%有近期发作。42%的符合条件患者尝试进行节律控制,其中88%使用抗心律失常药物(44%的患者使用I - C类药物;43%的患者使用胺碘酮)。药物复律的总体有效率为63%(胺碘酮为54.5%,氟卡尼为93%),而电复律在87.5%的病例中有效。68.3%的符合条件患者进行了心率控制(总体有效率47.8%);67%的病例使用了地高辛(有效率45%)。4.5%的病例同时选择了两种策略,而60%的患者未对心房颤动进行治疗。
在我们的急诊科患者群体中,心率控制效果不佳,且大多数近期发作的病例未尝试进行节律控制。似乎有必要采取措施提高心率控制效果、选择适合节律控制的患者以及使用电复律。