An Yoshimori, Esato Masahiro, Ishii Mitsuru, Iguchi Moritake, Masunaga Nobutoyo, Tsuji Hikari, Wada Hiromichi, Hasegawa Koji, Ogawa Hisashi, Abe Mitsuru, Lip Gregory Y H, Akao Masaharu
Department of Cardiology, National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center, 1-1, Mukaihata-cho, Fukakusa, Fushimi-ku, Kyoto, 612-8555, Japan.
Department of Arrhythmia, Ijinkai Takeda General Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Heart Vessels. 2018 Dec;33(12):1534-1546. doi: 10.1007/s00380-018-1194-5. Epub 2018 May 24.
Management of atrial fibrillation (AF) with current rhythm-control therapy has an uncertain impact on outcomes. Among 3731 patients in the Fushimi AF Registry, a community-based prospective survey of AF patients in Fushimi-ku, Kyoto, we investigated the characteristics and outcomes in 478 patients receiving rhythm-control therapy (anti-arrhythmic drug and/or catheter ablation) alone, with 1279 patients receiving rate-control therapy (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and digoxin) alone serving as a reference. The Rhythm-control group, 26% of which had prior catheter ablation, was younger (70.5 ± 10.8 vs. 74.3 ± 10.4 years, P < 0.001) with lower CHADS-VASc score (2.71 ± 1.63 vs. 3.64 ± 1.62, P < 0.001) and received oral anticoagulants less frequently than the Rate-control group. During the median follow-up of 1107 days, the incidence of the composite of cardiac death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization was lower with rhythm control (hazard ratio (HR) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-0.36; P < 0.001), whereas that of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism was not significantly different (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.35-1.10; P = 0.12), when compared to rate control. Propensity score-matching analysis as well as multivariate analysis further supported the relation of Rhythm-control group to the lower incidence of the composite of cardiac death and HF hospitalization. Rhythm-control therapy by anti-arrhythmic drug and/or catheter ablation in the contemporary clinical practice was associated with the lower incidence of the composite of cardiac death and HF hospitalization, as compared with rate-control therapy in a Japanese AF cohort. However, given the fundamental differences in baseline clinical characteristics between the rhythm- and Rate-control groups, the results cannot be generalizable.
目前的节律控制疗法用于心房颤动(AF)的管理,其对治疗结果的影响尚不确定。在伏见AF注册研究的3731名患者中(这是一项对京都伏见区AF患者进行的基于社区的前瞻性调查),我们调查了478例仅接受节律控制疗法(抗心律失常药物和/或导管消融)患者的特征和治疗结果,并将1279例仅接受心率控制疗法(β受体阻滞剂、钙通道阻滞剂和地高辛)的患者作为对照。节律控制组中26%的患者曾接受过导管消融,该组患者较年轻(70.5±10.8岁 vs. 74.3±10.4岁,P<0.001),CHADS-VASc评分较低(2.71±1.63 vs. 3.64±1.62,P<0.001),且口服抗凝剂的使用频率低于心率控制组。在1107天的中位随访期内,与心率控制相比,节律控制组中心脏性死亡和心力衰竭(HF)住院综合事件的发生率较低(风险比(HR)0.24,95%置信区间(CI)0.14 - 0.36;P<0.001),而缺血性卒中/全身性栓塞的发生率无显著差异(HR 0.64,95%CI 0.35 - 1.10;P = 0.12)。倾向评分匹配分析以及多变量分析进一步支持了节律控制组与心脏性死亡和HF住院综合事件较低发生率之间的关系。与日本AF队列中的心率控制疗法相比,当代临床实践中采用抗心律失常药物和/或导管消融的节律控制疗法与心脏性死亡和HF住院综合事件的较低发生率相关。然而,鉴于节律控制组和心率控制组之间基线临床特征存在根本差异,该结果无法推广。