Bradley David J, Shen Win-Kuang
Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
Heart Rhythm. 2007 Feb;4(2):224-32. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.10.016. Epub 2006 Oct 20.
Nonrandomized studies suggest that atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation and pacemaker implantation may improve quality of life, ejection fraction, and exercise tolerance in patients with symptomatic drug-refractory atrial fibrillation.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether recent randomized trials support the use of AV junction ablation in combination with conventional right ventricular pacemaker therapy or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in atrial fibrillation.
Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing AV junction ablation vs drugs or CRT vs right ventricular pacing for atrial fibrillation.
Six randomized trials with 323 patients compared AV junction ablation vs pharmacologic therapy. The majority of these trials did not individually report a statistically significant improvement in survival, stroke, hospitalization, functional class, atrial fibrillation-associated symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction, exercise capacity, healthcare costs, or quality of life. Overall, all-cause mortality was 3.5% for AV junction ablation patients and 3.3% for controls (relative risk 1.18, 99% confidence interval 0.26-5.22). Three randomized trials with 347 patients compared CRT vs right ventricular pacing in atrial fibrillation. These trials did not individually report a statistically significant improvement in survival, stroke, hospitalization, exercise capacity, or healthcare costs. CRT was associated with a statistically significant improvement in ejection fraction in two of the three trials. Overall, CRT was associated with a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality relative to controls (relative risk 0.51, 99% confidence interval 0.22-1.16). All-cause mortality was 7.1% for CRT patients and 14% for controls.
Limited randomized trial data have been published regarding AV junction ablation in combination with conventional pacemaker therapy or CRT for atrial fibrillation. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to assess the efficacy of these therapies.
非随机研究表明,房室结消融和起搏器植入可能改善症状性药物难治性心房颤动患者的生活质量、射血分数和运动耐量。
本研究的目的是确定近期的随机试验是否支持在心房颤动中使用房室结消融联合传统右心室起搏治疗或心脏再同步治疗(CRT)。
对比较房室结消融与药物治疗或CRT与右心室起搏治疗心房颤动的随机试验进行荟萃分析。
六项随机试验纳入323例患者,比较房室结消融与药物治疗。这些试验中的大多数未单独报告在生存、中风、住院、心功能分级、心房颤动相关症状、左心室射血分数、运动能力、医疗费用或生活质量方面有统计学意义的改善。总体而言,房室结消融患者的全因死亡率为3.5%,对照组为3.3%(相对风险1.18,99%置信区间0.26 - 5.22)。三项随机试验纳入347例患者,比较心房颤动患者的CRT与右心室起搏。这些试验未单独报告在生存、中风、住院、运动能力或医疗费用方面有统计学意义的改善。在三项试验中的两项中,CRT与射血分数的统计学显著改善相关。总体而言,与对照组相比,CRT有降低全因死亡率的趋势(相对风险0.51,99%置信区间0.22 - 1.16)。CRT患者的全因死亡率为7.1%,对照组为14%。
关于房室结消融联合传统起搏器治疗或CRT治疗心房颤动的随机试验数据有限。需要进行大规模随机试验来评估这些治疗方法的疗效。