Fuchs Therese, Groysman Rima, Meilichov Ilia
Arrhythmia Service, Cardiology Division, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, Israel.
Pharmacotherapy. 2008 Jan;28(1):14-9. doi: 10.1592/phco.28.1.14.
To determine the efficacy of the combination of class III and class Ic antiarrhythmic agents in suppressing an electrical storm in patients with and without a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).
Retrospective medical record review.
Arrhythmia service of an academic medical center in Zerifin, Israel.
Ten patients who experienced an electrical storm that was not effectively treated with amiodarone or sotalol monotherapy between December 15, 1999, and June 13, 2007.
The medical records of 152 patients who received an ICD during the study period were reviewed. Twenty patients experienced an electrical storm, an arrhythmia defined as more than two episodes of hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia during a 24- hour period. Ten of the 20 patients responded favorably to amiodarone or sotalol monotherapy (class III antiarrhythmics), but in 10 patients, the combination of a class III and a class Ic antiarrhythmic agent was needed to effectively eliminate the electrical storm. Of the 10 patients who required both agents, two (20%) developed an electrical storm before implantation of their ICD. In another patient who had ongoing ischemia, ventricular tachycardia recurred, but the drug combination decreased the number of ventricular arrhythmia episodes. One patient with dilated cardiomyopathy had one recurrence of ventricular tachycardia, which was terminated with antitachycardia pacing. Three patients died during a mean +/- SD follow-up of 8.7 +/- 9.9 months.
Electrical storm can be acutely treated with the combination of a class III and a class Ic antiarrhythmic agent when a class III agent alone is insufficient and when radiofrequency ablation is not an option. Patients receiving this drug combination can be discharged from the hospital only if they have an ICD.
确定Ⅲ类和Ⅰc类抗心律失常药物联合使用对有或无经静脉植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)患者电风暴的抑制效果。
回顾性病历审查。
以色列泽里芬一家学术医疗中心的心律失常科。
1999年12月15日至2007年6月13日期间经历电风暴且单独使用胺碘酮或索他洛尔单一疗法治疗无效的10例患者。
回顾了研究期间接受ICD治疗的152例患者的病历。20例患者发生电风暴,电风暴定义为24小时内出现两次以上血流动力学不稳定的室性心动过速发作。20例患者中有10例对胺碘酮或索他洛尔单一疗法(Ⅲ类抗心律失常药物)反应良好,但在10例患者中,需要联合使用Ⅲ类和Ⅰc类抗心律失常药物才能有效消除电风暴。在需要两种药物的10例患者中,有2例(20%)在植入ICD前发生电风暴。在另一名有持续性心肌缺血且室性心动过速复发的患者中,药物联合使用减少了室性心律失常发作次数。1例扩张型心肌病患者发生了1次室性心动过速复发,通过抗心动过速起搏终止。在平均±标准差为8.7±9.9个月的随访期间,3例患者死亡。
当单独使用Ⅲ类药物不足且无法进行射频消融时,可以使用Ⅲ类和Ⅰc类抗心律失常药物联合对电风暴进行急性治疗。仅当患者有ICD时,接受这种药物联合治疗的患者才能出院。