Suppr超能文献

非老年房颤患者中β受体阻滞剂与钙通道阻滞剂控制心室率的持续时间比较

Comparative persistence on β-blockers versus calcium channel blockers for ventricular rate control in nonelderly patients with atrial fibrillation.

作者信息

Desai Vibha C A, Kelton Christina M L, Metzger Anne H, Cavanaugh Teresa M, Guo Jeff J, Heaton Pamela C

机构信息

University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

出版信息

Ann Pharmacother. 2014 Dec;48(12):1570-9. doi: 10.1177/1060028014552819. Epub 2014 Oct 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

For patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), early treatment is essential to prevent serious complications such as stroke. Several randomized clinical trials have shown that rate-control may be as effective as rhythm-control medications, whereas the latter have serious side effects. Little evidence exists, however, about which class of rate-control medication-β-blockers (BBs) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs)-may be superior.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare the long-term persistence on BBs versus CCBs in nonelderly adult patients with AF.

METHODS

A longitudinal retrospective cohort study for patients 40 to 60 years old with newly diagnosed AF (identified by ICD-9 code 427.31) was performed using data from Ohio Medicaid physician, institutional, and pharmacy claims from January 2006 through June 2011. A Cox proportional hazard regression, with time to change out of rate-control therapy as the dependent variable, was estimated to compare persistence on (proxy for effectiveness of) rate-control medication across drug classes. A propensity-score analysis was used to control for selection bias. Additional covariates included age, development of heart failure, and medication adherence.

RESULTS

Out of 1239 patients included in the cohort, 1016 received a BB; 223 received a CCB. Over time, patients on CCBs were significantly more likely to switch out of rate-control therapy (hazard ratio = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.14-3.09) than patients on BBs.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that nonelderly AF patients, when prescribed rate-control therapy, persist longer on BBs than CCBs. Because this is the first long-term study comparing the 2 drug classes in the nonelderly population, further research is suggested.

摘要

背景

对于心房颤动(AF)患者,早期治疗对于预防中风等严重并发症至关重要。多项随机临床试验表明,心率控制可能与节律控制药物同样有效,而后者具有严重的副作用。然而,关于哪类心率控制药物——β受体阻滞剂(BBs)或钙通道阻滞剂(CCBs)——可能更具优势,几乎没有证据。

目的

目的是比较非老年AF成年患者使用BBs与CCBs的长期持续性。

方法

使用2006年1月至2011年6月俄亥俄州医疗补助计划中医生、机构和药房报销数据,对40至60岁新诊断为AF(由ICD-9代码427.31识别)的患者进行纵向回顾性队列研究。以停止心率控制治疗的时间为因变量,估计Cox比例风险回归,以比较不同药物类别心率控制药物的持续性(作为有效性的替代指标)。采用倾向得分分析来控制选择偏倚。其他协变量包括年龄、心力衰竭的发展和药物依从性。

结果

队列中的1239名患者中,1016名接受了BBs治疗;223名接受了CCBs治疗。随着时间的推移,与接受BBs治疗的患者相比,接受CCBs治疗的患者更有可能停止心率控制治疗(风险比=1.89;95%置信区间=1.14-3.09)。

结论

有证据表明,非老年AF患者在接受心率控制治疗时,使用BBs的持续时间比CCBs更长。由于这是第一项比较非老年人群中这两类药物的长期研究,建议进行进一步研究。

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