Suttorp M J, Kingma J H, Jessurun E R, Lie-A-Huen L, van Hemel N M, Lie K I
Department of Cardiology, St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990 Dec;16(7):1722-7. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(90)90326-k.
In a single-blind randomized study, the efficacy and safety of intravenous propafenone (2 mg/kg body weight per 10 min) versus flecainide (2 mg/kg per 10 min) were assessed in 50 patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter. Treatment was considered successful if sinus rhythm occurred within 1 h. Conversion to sinus was achieved in 11 (55%) of 20 patients with atrial fibrillation treated with propafenone and in 18 (90%) of 20 with atrial fibrillation treated with flecainide (p less than 0.02). If atrial fibrillation was present less than or equal to 24 h, conversion to sinus rhythm was achieved in 8 (57%) of 14 patients in the propafenone group and 13 (93%) of 14 in the flecainide group (p less than 0.05). Atrial flutter was converted in two (40%) of five patients treated with propafenone and in one (20%) of five with flecainide (p = NS). Mean time to conversion was 16 +/- 10 min in the propafenone group versus 18 +/- 13 min in the flecainide group (p = NS). QRS lengthening (83 +/- 15 to 99 +/- 20 ms) was observed only in the patients treated with flecainide (p less than 0.001). Patients successfully treated with propafenone showed significantly higher plasma levels than those whose arrhythmia did not convert to sinus rhythm. Transient adverse effects were more frequent in the flecainide group (40%) than in the propafenone group (8%) (p less than 0.01). In conclusion, at a dose of 2 mg/kg in 10 min, flecainide is more effective than propafenone for conversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. However, considering the propafenone plasma levels and very few adverse effects, the dose or infusion rate, or both, used in the propafenone group may not have been sufficient to achieve an optimal effect. Neither drug seems very effective in patients with atrial flutter.
在一项单盲随机研究中,对50例心房颤动或心房扑动患者评估了静脉注射普罗帕酮(每10分钟2mg/kg体重)与氟卡尼(每10分钟2mg/kg)的疗效和安全性。如果在1小时内出现窦性心律,则认为治疗成功。接受普罗帕酮治疗的20例心房颤动患者中有11例(55%)转为窦性心律,接受氟卡尼治疗的20例心房颤动患者中有18例(90%)转为窦性心律(p<0.02)。如果心房颤动存在时间小于或等于24小时,普罗帕酮组14例患者中有8例(57%)转为窦性心律,氟卡尼组14例患者中有13例(93%)转为窦性心律(p<0.05)。接受普罗帕酮治疗的5例心房扑动患者中有2例(40%)转为窦性心律,接受氟卡尼治疗的5例中有1例(20%)转为窦性心律(p=无显著性差异)。普罗帕酮组转为窦性心律的平均时间为16±10分钟,氟卡尼组为18±13分钟(p=无显著性差异)。仅在接受氟卡尼治疗的患者中观察到QRS波增宽(从83±15毫秒增至99±20毫秒)(p<0.001)。成功接受普罗帕酮治疗的患者血浆水平显著高于心律未转为窦性心律的患者。氟卡尼组的短暂不良反应(40%)比普罗帕酮组(8%)更常见(p<0.01)。总之,在10分钟内给予2mg/kg的剂量时,氟卡尼在将阵发性心房颤动转为窦性心律方面比普罗帕酮更有效。然而,考虑到普罗帕酮的血浆水平和极少的不良反应,普罗帕酮组使用的剂量或输注速率,或两者,可能不足以达到最佳效果。两种药物对心房扑动患者似乎都不太有效。