Geng Meng, Lin Andrew, Nguyen Thao P
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, The Cardiovascular Research Laboratory, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Front Pharmacol. 2020 Nov 9;11:581837. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.581837. eCollection 2020.
Since the clinical use of digitalis as the first pharmacological therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) 235 years ago in 1785, antiarrhythmic drug therapy has advanced considerably and become a cornerstone of AF clinical management. Yet, a preventive or curative panacea for sustained AF does not exist despite the rise of AF global prevalence to epidemiological proportions. While multiple elevated risk factors for AF have been established, the natural history and etiology of AF remain incompletely understood. In the present article, the first section selectively highlights some disappointing shortcomings and current efforts in antiarrhythmic drug therapy to uncover reasons why AF is such a clinical challenge. The second section discusses some modern takes on the natural history of AF as a relentless, progressive fibro-inflammatory "atriomyopathy." The final section emphasizes the need to redefine therapeutic strategies on par with new insights of AF pathophysiology.
自1785年235年前洋地黄作为心房颤动(AF)的第一种药物疗法应用于临床以来,抗心律失常药物治疗取得了长足进展,并成为房颤临床管理的基石。然而,尽管房颤的全球患病率已上升到流行病学比例,但仍不存在预防或治愈持续性房颤的万能药。虽然已经确定了多种房颤的高风险因素,但房颤的自然史和病因仍未完全明了。在本文中,第一部分有选择地突出了抗心律失常药物治疗中一些令人失望的缺点和当前的努力,以揭示房颤为何是一个临床挑战的原因。第二部分讨论了对房颤自然史的一些现代看法,即其是一种无情的、进行性的纤维炎症性“心房肌病”。最后一部分强调需要根据房颤病理生理学的新见解重新定义治疗策略。