Suppr超能文献

心房颤动的系统性电复律及抗心律失常药物的作用:SAFE-T试验的一项子研究

Systematic electrocardioversion for atrial fibrillation and role of antiarrhythmic drugs: a substudy of the SAFE-T trial.

作者信息

Singh Steven N, Tang X Charlene, Reda Domenic, Singh Bramah N

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC 20422, USA.

出版信息

Heart Rhythm. 2009 Feb;6(2):152-5. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2008.10.036. Epub 2008 Oct 29.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Energy levels for electrocardioversion in atrial fibrillation (AF) have been empiric, and the influence of antiarrhythmic therapy compared with placebo is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine systematically the energy levels for electrocardioversion in patients with persistent AF and to define the influence of antiarrhythmic therapy.

METHODS

Patients (n = 665) with persistent AF were randomized to amiodarone, sotalol, or placebo. Rate control, if necessary, was achieved with digoxin, diltiazem, or verapamil. Among the 665 patients, 504 who did not achieve sinus rhythm at day 28 had electrocardioversion systematically by a prespecified four-step protocol as follows: monophasic shocks-100, 200, 360, 360 J; or biphasic shocks-150, 175, 200, 200 J sequentially. Energy levels and shock waveforms (monophasic/biphasic) for successful electrocardioversion (sinus rhythm for at least 1 minute) and use of antiarrhythmic therapy and calcium channel blockers were recorded.

RESULTS

Electrocardioversion was successful in 371 (71.6%) of 504 patients: 72%, 73.5%, and 67.9% for patients assigned to amiodarone, sotalol, and placebo, respectively. Overall, after adjustments for age, body mass index (BMI), history of AF, shock waveforms, left atrial size, and ejection fraction, both amiodarone (odds ratio [OR]: 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24-3.77, P <.01) and sotalol (OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.11-3.33, P = .02) significantly facilitated successful electrocardioversion compared with placebo. Calcium channel blockers had no effect on the success rate of electrocardioversion. Success of electrocardioversion was associated with lower BMI, AF history < or =1 year, and older age. Compared with placebo, patients taking amiodarone were significantly more likely to achieve successful electrocardioversion in step 1 (OR: 2.73, 95% CI: 1.11-6.74, P = .03) and step 3 (OR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.00-3.44, P = .05) but not in steps 2 and 4. Sotalol was superior to placebo in step 4 (OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 1.02-6.52, P = .05) and trended in step 2 (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 0.98-3.07, P = .06). Successful electrocardioversion was seen in 11%, 29%, 38%, and 29% in steps 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Compared with monophasic shocks, biphasic shocks achieved higher success rates for step 1 (P <.001) and step 2 (P <.01), respectively. Antiarrhythmic therapy did not influence the total number of energy steps used for the patients with successful electrocardioversion. However, biphasic shocks, lower BMI, and AF duration < or =1 year were associated with less energy step used for successful cardioversion.

CONCLUSION

Amiodarone and sotalol facilitated successful electrocardioversion, which could be achieved in a stepwise fashion. Upon achievement of successful electrocardioversion, amiodarone is superior to placebo, and sotalol has a lesser effect. Antiarrhythmic drugs had no effect on the total number of energy step use in patients who had successful electrocardioversion. Calcium channel blockers had no influence on the success rate in achieving sinus rhythm. Successful electrocardioversion was associated with lower BMI and AF history < or =1 year. Lower energy use was associated with biphasic shocks, lower BMI, and AF duration < or =1 year.

摘要

背景

心房颤动(AF)患者电复律的能量水平一直是经验性的,与安慰剂相比,抗心律失常治疗的影响在很大程度上尚不清楚。

目的

本研究的目的是系统地确定持续性AF患者电复律的能量水平,并明确抗心律失常治疗的影响。

方法

将持续性AF患者(n = 665)随机分为胺碘酮组、索他洛尔组或安慰剂组。必要时,使用地高辛、地尔硫卓或维拉帕米进行心率控制。在665例患者中,28天时未恢复窦性心律的504例患者按照预先指定的四步方案进行系统电复律,方案如下:单相波电击——100、200、360、360 J;或双相波电击——依次为150、175、200、200 J。记录成功电复律(窦性心律至少持续1分钟)的能量水平和电击波形(单相波/双相波)以及抗心律失常治疗和钙通道阻滞剂的使用情况。

结果

504例患者中有371例(71.6%)电复律成功:分别接受胺碘酮、索他洛尔和安慰剂治疗的患者成功率为72%、73.5%和67.9%。总体而言,在对年龄、体重指数(BMI)、AF病史、电击波形、左心房大小和射血分数进行校正后,与安慰剂相比,胺碘酮(比值比[OR]:2.16,95%置信区间[CI]:1.24 - 3.77,P <.01)和索他洛尔(OR:1.92,95% CI:1.11 - 3.33,P =.02)均显著促进了电复律成功。钙通道阻滞剂对电复律成功率无影响。电复律成功与较低的BMI、AF病史≤1年以及较高年龄相关。与安慰剂相比,服用胺碘酮的患者在第1步(OR:2.73,95% CI:1.11 - 6.74,P =.03)和第3步(OR:1.86,95% CI:1.00 - 3.44,P =.05)更有可能实现成功电复律,但在第2步和第4步则不然。索他洛尔在第4步优于安慰剂(OR:2.58,95% CI:1.02 - 6.52,P =.05),在第2步有趋势性优势(OR:1.7,95% CI:0.98 - 3.07,P =.06)。第1步、第2步、第3步和第4步的电复律成功率分别为11%、29%、38%和29%。与单相波电击相比,双相波电击在第1步(P <.001)和第2步(P <.01)的成功率更高。抗心律失常治疗对成功电复律患者使用的总能量步数没有影响。然而,双相波电击、较低的BMI和AF持续时间≤1年与成功复律所需的能量步数较少有关。

结论

胺碘酮和索他洛尔促进了电复律成功,且可逐步实现。成功电复律后,胺碘酮优于安慰剂,索他洛尔效果稍差。抗心律失常药物对成功电复律患者使用的总能量步数没有影响。钙通道阻滞剂对实现窦性心律的成功率没有影响。成功电复律与较低的BMI和AF病史≤1年相关。较低的能量使用与双相波电击、较低的BMI和AF持续时间≤1年有关。

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