Suppr超能文献

普罗帕酮与胺碘酮治疗慢性室性早搏疗效的对比研究

[Comparative study of the efficacy of propafenone and amiodarone in the treatment of chronic ventricular extrasystole].

作者信息

Fauchier J P, Cosnay P, Rouesnel P, Moquet B, Huguet R, Wajman A

出版信息

Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1986 Sep;79(10):1495-505.

PMID:2432845
Abstract

30 patients (mean age 56 +/- 18 years) suffering from multiple ventricular extrasystoles (VES) of various origin, like ischemic, hypertensive, valvular and congenital cardiopathy, and arrhythmogenic ventricular dysplasia, were treated during 12 days by a daily dose of 900 mg of propafenone (15 cases) or 600 mg of amiodarone (15 cases). The study was randomized and a portable ECG was used for 24 h. At the time of entering into the study (H0) the patients were without any therapy. The mean total number of VES was 16,878 +/- 9,212 in the propafenone group (2,062 +/- 2,342 of them being repetitive) and 19,497 +/- 7,930 in the amiodarone group (2,907 +/- 3,615 of them being repetitive). The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant, even with the use of Holter (H1) ECG monitoring one week later. After 12 days of treatment (H2) a significant decrease in the number of total VES was noted: by 78% with propafenone (76% isolated and 89% repetitive VES) and by 77% with amiodarone (74% isolated and 91% repetitive VES). The difference between the effect of the two drugs was not significative. After 12 days of wash-out (H3) the number of VES returned to initial values with propafenone but not with amiodarone where the values were still decreased after 82 days of wash-out (H4). Both drugs produced significant bradycardia which was more apparent and more spread out during the nyctohemeral with amiodarone. Propafenone affected rather the maximal and diurnal frequencies. No correlation was found between the bradycardic and antiarrhythmic effect. Amiodarone was well tolerated and propafenone produced minor digestive and neurosensory troubles in about half the cases, only in one patient a more pronounced arrhythmogenic effect was observed. In conclusion, the efficacy and the good hemodynamic tolerance of the two drugs was found to be similar in the short-term treatment of chronic, isolated or repetitive VES, irrespective of their etiology.

摘要

30例患有多种起源的室性早搏(VES)的患者(平均年龄56±18岁),病因包括缺血性、高血压性、瓣膜性和先天性心脏病以及致心律失常性右室发育不良,分别接受为期12天的治疗,其中15例每日服用900mg普罗帕酮,另15例每日服用600mg胺碘酮。该研究为随机研究,并使用便携式心电图进行24小时监测。在进入研究时(H0),患者未接受任何治疗。普罗帕酮组VES的平均总数为16,878±9,212次(其中2,062±2,342次为重复性早搏),胺碘酮组为19,497±7,930次(其中2,907±3,615次为重复性早搏)。两组之间的差异无统计学意义,即使在一周后使用动态心电图(H1)监测时也是如此。治疗12天后(H2),总VES数量显著减少:普罗帕酮组减少78%(孤立性VES减少76%,重复性VES减少89%),胺碘酮组减少77%(孤立性VES减少74%,重复性VES减少91%)。两种药物疗效的差异无统计学意义。洗脱12天后(H3),普罗帕酮组VES数量恢复到初始值,而胺碘酮组未恢复,在洗脱82天后(H4)其值仍降低。两种药物均导致显著的心动过缓,胺碘酮导致的心动过缓在昼夜期间更明显且更广泛。普罗帕酮主要影响最大心率和日间心率。未发现心动过缓与抗心律失常作用之间存在相关性。胺碘酮耐受性良好,普罗帕酮在约一半的病例中产生轻微的消化系统和神经感觉问题,仅1例患者观察到更明显的致心律失常作用。总之,在慢性、孤立性或重复性VES的短期治疗中,无论其病因如何,发现这两种药物的疗效和良好的血流动力学耐受性相似。

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