Siu Chung-Wah, Lau Chu-Pak, Lee Wai-Luen, Lam Kwok-Fai, Tse Hung-Fat
Department of Medicine, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Crit Care Med. 2009 Jul;37(7):2174-9; quiz 2180. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a02f56.
To compare the clinical efficacy of intravenous diltiazem, digoxin, and amiodarone for acute ventricular rate (VR) control in patients with acute symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) necessitating hospitalization.
Randomized control trial.
Acute emergency medical admission unit in a regional teaching hospital in Hong Kong.
One hundred fifty adult patients with acute AF and rapid VR (>120 bpm).
Patients were randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive intravenous diltiazem, digoxin, or amiodarone for VR control.
The primary end point was sustained VR control (<90 bpm) within 24 hours; the secondary end points included AF symptom improvement and length of hospitalization. At 24 hours, VR control was achieved in 119 of 150 patients (79%). The time to VR control was significantly shorter among patients in the diltiazem group (log-rank test, p < 0.0001) with the percentage of patients who achieved VR control being higher in the diltiazem group (90%) than the digoxin group (74%) and the amiodarone group (74%). The median time to VR control was significantly shorter in the diltiazem group (3 hours, 1-21 hours) compared with the digoxin (6 hours, 3-15 hours, p < 0.001) and amiodarone groups (7 hours, 1-18 hours, p = 0.003). Furthermore, patients in the diltiazem group persistently had the lowest mean VR after the first hour of drug administration compared with the other two groups (p < 0.05). The diltiazem group had the largest reduction in AF symptom frequency score and severity score (p < 0.0001). In addition, length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the diltiazem group (3.9 +/- 1.6 days) compared with digoxin (4.7 +/- 2.1 days, p = 0.023) and amiodarone groups (4.7 +/- 2.2 days, p = 0.038).
As compared with digoxin and amiodarone, intravenous diltiazem was safe and effective in achieving VR control to improve symptoms and to reduce hospital stay in patients with acute AF.
比较静脉注射地尔硫䓬、地高辛和胺碘酮对因急性症状性心房颤动(AF)需住院治疗患者的急性心室率(VR)控制的临床疗效。
随机对照试验。
香港一家地区教学医院的急性急诊医学收治单元。
150例急性AF且心室率快速(>120次/分钟)的成年患者。
患者按1:1:1比例随机分配,接受静脉注射地尔硫䓬、地高辛或胺碘酮以控制VR。
主要终点为24小时内实现持续性VR控制(<90次/分钟);次要终点包括AF症状改善及住院时间。24小时时,150例患者中有119例(79%)实现了VR控制。地尔硫䓬组患者达到VR控制的时间显著更短(对数秩检验,p<0.0001),地尔硫䓬组实现VR控制的患者百分比(90%)高于地高辛组(74%)和胺碘酮组(74%)。与地高辛组(6小时,3 - 15小时,p<0.001)和胺碘酮组(7小时,1 - 18小时,p = 0.003)相比,地尔硫䓬组达到VR控制的中位时间显著更短(3小时,1 - 21小时)。此外,与其他两组相比,地尔硫䓬组患者在给药后第一小时后的平均VR持续最低(p<0.05)。地尔硫䓬组AF症状频率评分和严重程度评分降低幅度最大(p<0.0001)。此外,与地高辛组(4.7±2.1天,p = 0.023)和胺碘酮组(4.7±2.2天,p = 0.038)相比,地尔硫䓬组的住院时间显著更短(3.9±1.6天)。
与地高辛和胺碘酮相比,静脉注射地尔硫䓬在实现VR控制以改善症状和缩短急性AF患者住院时间方面安全有效。