University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2012 Feb;5(1):43-51. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.111.965178. Epub 2011 Dec 7.
Unlike antiarrhythmic drugs, the safety and beneficial effects of angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB) in patients with structural heart disease is well established. The clinical efficacy of ARBs to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) so far only has been shown in patients with structural heart disease. Here, we report the primary outcome of the Angiotensin II-Antagonist in Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (ANTIPAF) trial, which investigated the effect of olmesartan medoxomil compared with placebo on AF burden in patients with paroxysmal AF without structural heart disease.
The ANTIPAF trial was a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial analyzing the AF burden (percentage of days with documented episodes of paroxysmal AF) during a 12-month follow-up as the primary study end point. Four hundred thirty patients with documented paroxysmal AF without structural heart disease were randomized to placebo or 40 mg olmesartan per day. Concomitant therapy with ARBs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and antiarrhythmic drugs was prohibited. Patients were followed using daily transtelephonic ECG (tele-ECG) recordings independent of symptoms. The intention-to-treat population of the trial encompassed 425 patients (placebo group, n=211; olmesartan group, n=214). A total of 87 818 tele-ECGs were analyzed in these patients during follow-up (placebo group, 44 888 ECGs; olmesartan group, 42 930 ECGs). Thus, a mean of 207 tele-ECGs were recorded per patient. The primary end point (AF burden) was not different between the 2 groups (P=0.770). Secondary outcome parameters, including quality of life, also were not different. In particular, time to first AF recurrence, time to persistent AF, and number of hospitalizations were not different between the 2 groups. The time to prescription of recovery medication (amiodarone) was the only parameter showing an intergroup difference, with earlier prescription of amiodarone in the placebo group (P=0.022).
One year of ARB therapy per se does not reduce the number of AF episodes in patients with documented paroxysmal AF without structural heart disease. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00098137.
与抗心律失常药物不同,血管紧张素 II 受体阻断剂(ARB)在结构性心脏病患者中的安全性和有益效果已得到充分证实。ARB 预防心房颤动(AF)的临床疗效迄今为止仅在结构性心脏病患者中得到证实。在这里,我们报告阵发性心房颤动中血管紧张素 II 拮抗剂(ANTIPAF)试验的主要结果,该试验研究了奥美沙坦酯与安慰剂相比对无结构性心脏病的阵发性 AF 患者 AF 负荷的影响。
ANTIPAF 试验是一项前瞻性、随机、安慰剂对照、多中心试验,分析了 12 个月随访期间的 AF 负荷(记录的阵发性 AF 发作天数的百分比)作为主要研究终点。430 例有记录的无结构性心脏病的阵发性 AF 患者被随机分配至安慰剂或每天 40mg 奥美沙坦组。禁止同时使用 ARB、血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂和抗心律失常药物。使用独立于症状的每日远程心电图(tele-ECG)记录对患者进行随访。试验的意向治疗人群包括 425 例患者(安慰剂组,n=211;奥美沙坦组,n=214)。在随访期间,对这些患者共进行了 87818 次 tele-ECG 分析(安慰剂组,44888 次 ECG;奥美沙坦组,42930 次 ECG)。因此,每位患者平均记录了 207 次 tele-ECG。两组之间主要终点(AF 负荷)无差异(P=0.770)。次要终点参数,包括生活质量,也无差异。特别是,两组之间首次 AF 复发时间、持续性 AF 时间和住院次数均无差异。恢复药物(胺碘酮)的处方时间是唯一显示组间差异的参数,安慰剂组的胺碘酮处方时间较早(P=0.022)。
一年的 ARB 治疗本身并不能减少有记录的无结构性心脏病阵发性 AF 患者的 AF 发作次数。临床试验注册- URL:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov。唯一标识符:NCT00098137。