Farkowski Michał M, Maciąg Aleksander, Żurawska Małgorzata, Pytkowski Mariusz, Kowalik Ilona, Woźniak Jacek, Sterliński Maciej, Szwed Hanna
Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2016 Jun 24;126(6):381-7. doi: 10.20452/pamw.3452.
INTRODUCTION Numerous studies described the effectiveness and safety of antazoline in pharmacological cardioversion of short‑duration atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there are no data on the comparison of antazoline and antiarrhythmic drugs listed in clinical guidelines. OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of antazoline‑based and propafenone‑based strategies in pharmacological cardioversion of short‑duration AF performed in our emergency department. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a retrospective case‑control study based on the analysis of medical records of patients undergoing pharmacological cardioversion of short‑duration AF with intravenous antazoline or propafenone at our department in the years 2008-2012. The primary endpoint was the successful cardioversion of AF. The primary safety endpoint was hospitalization due to the adverse effects of the treatment. RESULTS We analyzed 432 cases of cardioversion. The mean age of patients was 68.9 ±9.8 years; 65% of the patients were male; 90% of the patients had a history of AF. Antazoline was administered 334 times and propafenone-98 times. The mean dose of antazoline was 172 ±65 mg, while all patients in the propafenone group received the drug at a fixed dose of 70 mg (1 vial). Cardioversion with antazoline was successful in 239 cases (71.6%) and with propafenone-in 54 patients (55.1%) (relative risk [RR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.57). The rate of hospitalization due to the adverse effects of the treatment were low and similar between the study groups: 10 (3.0%) for antazoline and 4 (4.1%) for propafenone (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.23-2.27). CONCLUSIONS The antazoline‑based strategy was more effective and safer in comparison with propafenone‑based strategy in the pharmacological cardioversion of short‑duration AF in our emergency department.
众多研究描述了安他唑啉在短程心房颤动(AF)药物复律中的有效性和安全性。然而,尚无关于安他唑啉与临床指南中列出的抗心律失常药物比较的数据。
本研究旨在评估在我们急诊科进行的短程AF药物复律中,基于安他唑啉和基于普罗帕酮的策略的相对有效性和安全性。
我们进行了一项回顾性病例对照研究,基于对2008年至2012年在我们科室接受静脉注射安他唑啉或普罗帕酮进行短程AF药物复律的患者病历分析。主要终点是AF成功复律。主要安全终点是因治疗不良反应而住院。
我们分析了432例复律病例。患者的平均年龄为68.9±9.8岁;65%为男性;90%的患者有AF病史。安他唑啉给药334次,普罗帕酮给药98次。安他唑啉的平均剂量为172±65mg,而普罗帕酮组的所有患者均接受固定剂量70mg(1瓶)的药物。安他唑啉复律成功239例(71.6%),普罗帕酮复律成功54例(55.1%)(相对危险度[RR],1.30;95%置信区间[CI],1.07 - 1.57)。因治疗不良反应而住院的发生率较低,且在研究组之间相似:安他唑啉组为10例(3.0%),普罗帕酮组为4例(4.1%)(RR,0.73;95%CI,0.23 - 2.27)。
在我们急诊科进行的短程AF药物复律中,基于安他唑啉的策略与基于普罗帕酮的策略相比更有效且更安全。