• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Comparisons of hospitalization rates among younger atrial fibrillation patients receiving different antiarrhythmic drugs.接受不同抗心律失常药物治疗的年轻房颤患者住院率的比较。
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015 May;8(3):292-300. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001499. Epub 2015 Mar 31.
2
Antiarrhythmic drug use in patients <65 years with atrial fibrillation and without structural heart disease.年龄<65岁且无结构性心脏病的房颤患者使用抗心律失常药物的情况。
Am J Cardiol. 2015 Feb 1;115(3):316-22. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.11.005. Epub 2014 Nov 13.
3
The effect of antiarrhythmic medications on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease.抗心律失常药物对合并心房颤动和冠状动脉疾病患者心血管结局风险的影响。
Int J Cardiol. 2024 Aug 15;409:132198. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132198. Epub 2024 May 21.
4
Comparative effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs for rhythm control of atrial fibrillation.抗心律失常药物用于心房颤动节律控制的比较疗效
J Cardiol. 2016 May;67(5):471-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2015.07.001. Epub 2015 Jul 29.
5
Efficacy and safety of dronedarone in patients previously treated with other antiarrhythmic agents.决奈达隆在曾接受其他抗心律失常药物治疗的患者中的疗效和安全性。
Clin Cardiol. 2014 Dec;37(12):717-24. doi: 10.1002/clc.22342. Epub 2014 Dec 2.
6
Real-World Comparison of Classes IC and III Antiarrhythmic Drugs as an Initial Rhythm Control Strategy in Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation: From the TREAT-AF Study.真实世界中比较 Ic 类和 III 类抗心律失常药物作为新发心房颤动初始节律控制策略的疗效:来自 TREAT-AF 研究。
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Feb;5(2):231-241. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.08.025. Epub 2018 Nov 1.
7
One-year treatment persistence and potential adverse events among patients with atrial fibrillation treated with amiodarone or sotalol: a retrospective claims database analysis.胺碘酮或索他洛尔治疗心房颤动患者的一年治疗持续性和潜在不良事件:回顾性理赔数据库分析。
Clin Ther. 2011 Nov;33(11):1668-1681.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.10.005.
8
Design and rationale of a randomized study to compare amiodarone and Class IC anti-arrhythmic drugs in terms of atrial fibrillation treatment efficacy in patients paced for sinus node disease: the PITAGORA trial.一项比较胺碘酮与ⅠC类抗心律失常药物对病窦综合征起搏患者房颤治疗疗效的随机研究的设计与原理:皮塔哥拉试验
Europace. 2006 Apr;8(4):302-5. doi: 10.1093/europace/eul003. Epub 2006 Feb 21.
9
Cardiovascular outcomes in the AFFIRM Trial (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management). An assessment of individual antiarrhythmic drug therapies compared with rate control with propensity score-matched analyses.AFFIRM 试验(心房颤动节律管理随访研究)中的心血管结局。采用倾向评分匹配分析对个体抗心律失常药物治疗与心率控制进行评估。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Nov 1;58(19):1975-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.07.036.
10
An individual patient-based meta-analysis of the effects of dronedarone in patients with atrial fibrillation.基于个体患者的数据分析,评估决奈达隆在房颤患者中的疗效。
Europace. 2014 Aug;16(8):1117-24. doi: 10.1093/europace/euu065. Epub 2014 Apr 11.

引用本文的文献

1
Safety and efficacy of long-term sodium channel blocker therapy for early rhythm control: the EAST-AFNET 4 trial.长期钠通道阻滞剂治疗早期节律控制的安全性和有效性:EAST-AFNET 4 试验。
Europace. 2024 Jun 3;26(6). doi: 10.1093/europace/euae121.
2
Dronedarone versus sotalol in patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.在心房颤动患者中比较多非尼酮与索他洛尔:系统文献回顾和网络荟萃分析。
Clin Cardiol. 2023 Jun;46(6):589-597. doi: 10.1002/clc.24011. Epub 2023 Apr 6.
3
Flecainide How and When: A Practical Guide in Supraventricular Arrhythmias.氟卡尼的使用方法与时机:室上性心律失常实用指南
J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 2;10(7):1456. doi: 10.3390/jcm10071456.

本文引用的文献

1
Antiarrhythmic drug use in patients <65 years with atrial fibrillation and without structural heart disease.年龄<65岁且无结构性心脏病的房颤患者使用抗心律失常药物的情况。
Am J Cardiol. 2015 Feb 1;115(3):316-22. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.11.005. Epub 2014 Nov 13.
2
Reducing the trauma of hospitalization.减轻住院带来的创伤。
JAMA. 2014 Jun 4;311(21):2169-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.3695.
3
Safety of dronedarone in routine clinical care.在常规临床护理中使用多非利特的安全性。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jun 10;63(22):2376-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.601. Epub 2014 Apr 9.
4
2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society.2014年美国心脏协会/美国心脏病学会/心律学会心房颤动患者管理指南:美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会实践指南工作组及心律学会的报告
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Dec 2;64(21):e1-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.03.022. Epub 2014 Mar 28.
5
Impact of dronedarone treatment on healthcare resource utilization in patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter.决奈达隆治疗对心房颤动/心房扑动患者医疗资源利用的影响。
Adv Ther. 2014 Mar;31(3):318-32. doi: 10.1007/s12325-014-0108-x. Epub 2014 Mar 5.
6
Adherence to guideline recommendations for antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillation.抗心律失常药物治疗心房颤动指南建议的依从性。
Am Heart J. 2013 Nov;166(5):871-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.08.010. Epub 2013 Sep 24.
7
Estimates of current and future incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation in the U.S. adult population.美国成年人群中心房颤动当前和未来的发病率和患病率估计。
Am J Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;112(8):1142-7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.05.063. Epub 2013 Jul 4.
8
Heart disease and stroke statistics--2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association.《2013年心脏病和中风统计数据更新:美国心脏协会报告》
Circulation. 2013 Jan 1;127(1):e6-e245. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31828124ad. Epub 2012 Dec 12.
9
Efficacy and safety profile of dronedarone in clinical practice. Results of the Magdeburg Dronedarone Registry (MADRE study).临床实践中决奈达隆的疗效和安全性概况。马格德堡决奈达隆注册研究(MADRE 研究)结果。
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Sep 10;167(6):2600-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.06.056. Epub 2012 Jul 9.
10
Comparative effectiveness of rhythm control vs rate control drug treatment effect on mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation.节律控制与心率控制药物治疗对房颤患者死亡率的比较疗效
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Jul 9;172(13):997-1004. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.2266.

接受不同抗心律失常药物治疗的年轻房颤患者住院率的比较。

Comparisons of hospitalization rates among younger atrial fibrillation patients receiving different antiarrhythmic drugs.

作者信息

Allen LaPointe Nancy M, Dai David, Thomas Laine, Piccini Jonathan P, Peterson Eric D, Al-Khatib Sana M

机构信息

From the Duke Clinical Research Institute (N.M. A. L., D.D., L.T., J. P.P., E.D.P., S.M.A-K.); Department of Medicine (N.M.A.L., J.P.P., E.D.P., S.M.A-K.), and Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (L.T.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.

出版信息

Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015 May;8(3):292-300. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001499. Epub 2015 Mar 31.

DOI:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001499
PMID:25829248
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4561170/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are used to reduce the frequency, severity, and duration of atrial fibrillation (AF) events, which should reduce hospitalizations; however, little is known about the associations between different AADs and hospitalization—particularly among younger AF patients without structural heart disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using MarketScan® claims data, we identified AF patients without coronary artery disease or heart failure who received their first AAD prescription (amiodarone, sotalol, dronedarone, or Class Ic) within 14 days post-first AF encounter. The primary outcome was time from first AAD prescription to AF hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included time to cardiovascular and all-cause hospitalizations. We used inverse probability-weighted estimators to adjust for differences in treatment allocation in the Cox proportional hazards model for each outcome. Among 8562 AF patients with a median age of 56 years (interquartile range 49, 61), risk of AF hospitalization was greater with dronedarone than Class Ic (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59; 95% confidence interval 1.13-2.24), amiodarone (HR 2.63; 1.77-3.89), and sotalol (HR 1.72; 1.17-2.54), but lower with amiodarone versus Class Ic (HR 0.68; 0.57-0.80) and sotalol (HR 0.63; 0.53-0.75). Risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was lower with amiodarone than Class Ic (HR 0.80; 0.70-0.92), but not non-AF cardiovascular hospitalization (HR 1.26; 1.01-1.57). There was no difference in all-cause hospitalization between amiodarone, Class Ic, and sotalol.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in hospitalization rates were found between AADs in younger AF patients without structural heart disease. Amiodarone had the lowest risk of AF hospitalization and dronedarone had the greatest risk. Additional research is needed to better understand associations between AADs and hospitalization risk.

摘要

背景

抗心律失常药物(AADs)用于降低房颤(AF)事件的频率、严重程度和持续时间,这应该会减少住院次数;然而,对于不同AADs与住院之间的关联知之甚少——尤其是在无结构性心脏病的年轻房颤患者中。

方法与结果

利用MarketScan®索赔数据,我们识别出在首次发生房颤后14天内接受首个AAD处方(胺碘酮、索他洛尔、决奈达隆或Ic类药物)且无冠状动脉疾病或心力衰竭的房颤患者。主要结局是从首次AAD处方到房颤住院的时间,次要结局包括心血管住院时间和全因住院时间。我们使用逆概率加权估计量在Cox比例风险模型中对每个结局的治疗分配差异进行调整。在8562例中位年龄为56岁(四分位间距49,61)的房颤患者中,决奈达隆导致房颤住院的风险高于Ic类药物(风险比[HR]1.59;95%置信区间1.13 - 2.24)、胺碘酮(HR 2.63;1.77 - 3.89)和索他洛尔(HR 1.72;1.17 - 2.54),但胺碘酮导致房颤住院的风险低于Ic类药物(HR 0.68;0.57 - 0.80)和索他洛尔(HR 0.63;0.53 - 0.75)。胺碘酮导致心血管住院的风险低于Ic类药物(HR 0.80;0.70 - 0.92),但非房颤心血管住院风险则不然(HR 1.26;1.01 - 1.57)。胺碘酮、Ic类药物和索他洛尔在全因住院方面无差异。

结论

在无结构性心脏病的年轻房颤患者中,不同AADs的住院率存在差异。胺碘酮导致房颤住院的风险最低,决奈达隆导致房颤住院的风险最高。需要进一步研究以更好地理解AADs与住院风险之间的关联。