Mitchell L B, Duff H J, Manyari D E, Wyse D G
Department of Medicine, Foothills General Hospital, Calgary, Alta., Canada.
N Engl J Med. 1987 Dec 31;317(27):1681-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198712313172701.
There is controversy over whether therapy to prevent ventricular tachyarrhythmias should be selected noninvasively (by trying drugs and monitoring the patient electrocardiographically) or invasively (by selecting a drug that prevents induction of the arrhythmia by programmed stimulation). We randomly assigned 57 patients with symptomatic and demonstrable ventricular tachyarrhythmias to therapy selected either noninvasively or invasively. The tachyarrhythmias involved were sustained ventricular tachycardia (35 patients), nonsustained ventricular tachycardia with hypotension (15 patients), and ventricular fibrillation (7 patients). The noninvasive approach sought reduction of ventricular premature beats by more than 80 percent and of couplets by more than 90 percent, with elimination of three or more successive ventricular beats on ambulatory monitoring and exercise testing. The invasive approach sought to prevent the induction of five or more repetitive beats by programmed stimulation. The noninvasive approach required fewer drug trials (3.2 +/- 1.8 [mean +/- SD] vs. 5.5 +/- 2.8, P less than 0.001) and fewer hospital days (20 +/- 15 vs. 33 +/- 24, P = 0.01) and identified a therapy predicted to be effective for more patients than did the invasive approach (29 of 29 vs. 15 of 28, P less than 0.001). When a predicted effective therapy was not found, amiodarone was prescribed despite persisting inducibility of ventricular tachycardia. Patients randomly assigned to the noninvasive approach had more symptomatic recurrences of tachyarrhythmia than those treated by the invasive approach (two-year actuarial probabilities of 0.50 +/- 0.10 vs. 0.20 +/- 0.08, P = 0.02). Similar differences were observed when amiodarone recipients were excluded. There were only three deaths from recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias--two in the group whose treatment was selected noninvasively and one in the group whose treatment was selected invasively (not significant). We conclude that therapy selected by the invasive approach prevents recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias better than that selected by the noninvasive approach.
对于预防室性快速心律失常的治疗方法应选择非侵入性(通过试用药物并进行心电图监测)还是侵入性(通过选择一种能防止程序刺激诱发心律失常的药物)存在争议。我们将57例有症状且可证实的室性快速心律失常患者随机分为非侵入性或侵入性治疗组。涉及的快速心律失常包括持续性室性心动过速(35例患者)、伴有低血压的非持续性室性心动过速(15例患者)和心室颤动(7例患者)。非侵入性方法旨在使室性早搏减少80%以上,成对早搏减少90%以上,并在动态监测和运动试验中消除三个或更多连续的室性搏动。侵入性方法旨在防止程序刺激诱发五个或更多的重复搏动。非侵入性方法所需的药物试验更少(3.2±1.8[平均值±标准差]对5.5±2.8,P<0.001),住院天数更少(20±15对33±24,P = 0.01),并且与侵入性方法相比,能为更多患者确定预计有效的治疗方法(29例中的29例对28例中的15例,P<0.001)。当未找到预计有效的治疗方法时,尽管室性心动过速仍可诱发,但仍会开具胺碘酮。随机分配到非侵入性方法组的患者心律失常症状复发比侵入性治疗组更多(两年精算概率为0.50±0.10对0.20±0.08,P = 0.02)。排除接受胺碘酮治疗的患者后,也观察到了类似的差异。因复发性室性快速心律失常死亡的仅有三例——两例在非侵入性选择治疗组,一例在侵入性选择治疗组(无显著差异)。我们得出结论,侵入性方法选择的治疗比非侵入性方法选择的治疗能更好地预防室性快速心律失常复发。