Suppr超能文献

抗心律失常药物治疗对单次持续性室性心动过速/心室颤动发作后接受植入式心脏复律除颤器患者电击发生率的影响。

Effect of antiarrhythmic drug therapy on the incidence of shocks in patients who receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator after a single episode of sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation.

作者信息

Kou W H, Kirsh M M, Bolling S F, Stirling M, Kadish A H, De Buitleir M, Calkins H, Lewis R R, Morady F

机构信息

Ann Arbor Veterans Administration Medical Center, MI 48105.

出版信息

Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1991 Nov;14(11 Pt 1):1586-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1991.tb02733.x.

Abstract

Seventy-four patients (16 women, 58 men, age 58 +/- 11 years, mean +/- standard deviation) who received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) after experiencing a single episode of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were followed to determine if antiarrhythmic drug therapy affects the incidence of ICD discharges. Thirty-three patients (group A) were treated with an antiarrhythmic drug that was either untested or previously demonstrated during electropharmacological testing to be ineffective in suppressing the induction of ventricular tachycardia. Forty-one patients (group B) were not treated with an antiarrhythmic drug. There were no significant differences between the two groups in regards to age, sex, incidence of coronary artery disease, left ventricular function or the type of ICD pulse generator used. During a mean follow-up of 14 months for the entire cohort, 15 patients (46%) in group A and 18 patients (44%) in group B experienced at least one ICD shock. The time to the first appropriate shock (5 +/- 5 months in both groups) and the frequency of ICD shocks (0.3 +/- 0.2/month in group A vs 0.4 +/- 0.5/month in group B) were similar in both groups. The incidence of syncope at the time of ICD discharge was higher in group A than group B patients (31% vs 5%, P less than 0.05). In conclusion, antiarrhythmic drugs that are untested or have failed electropharmacological testing do not appear to reduce the probability of ICD discharge over a short-term (mean 14 months) follow-up in patients who have had only one clinical episode of VT/VF and may increase the risk of syncope during ICD discharge.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

摘要

74例患者(16例女性,58例男性,年龄58±11岁,均值±标准差)在经历单次室性心动过速或心室颤动后接受了植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)治疗,对其进行随访以确定抗心律失常药物治疗是否会影响ICD放电的发生率。33例患者(A组)接受了一种抗心律失常药物治疗,该药物未经测试或先前在电药理学测试中已证明对抑制室性心动过速的诱发无效。41例患者(B组)未接受抗心律失常药物治疗。两组在年龄、性别、冠状动脉疾病发生率、左心室功能或所用ICD脉冲发生器类型方面无显著差异。在整个队列平均14个月的随访期间,A组15例患者(46%)和B组18例患者(44%)至少经历了一次ICD电击。两组首次适当电击的时间(均为5±5个月)和ICD电击频率(A组为0.3±0.2/月,B组为0.4±0.5/月)相似。A组ICD放电时晕厥的发生率高于B组患者(31%对5%,P<0.05)。总之,未经测试或电药理学测试失败的抗心律失常药物在仅发生一次VT/VF临床发作的患者短期(平均14个月)随访中似乎不会降低ICD放电的概率,并且可能会增加ICD放电期间晕厥的风险。(摘要截短至250字)

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验