McMaster University, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular, and Stroke Research Institute, 237 Barton Street East, Hamilton, ON L8L 2X2, Canada.
Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON L8L 2X2, Canada.
Europace. 2022 Oct 13;24(10):1548-1559. doi: 10.1093/europace/euac063.
Our objective was to compare the efficacy of pre-treatment with different classes of anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing electrical cardioversion.
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different AADs in patients with AF undergoing electrical cardioversion. We grouped AADs into five network nodes: no treatment or rate control, Class Ia, Class Ic, Class III, and amiodarone. Outcomes were (i) acute restoration and (ii) maintenance of sinus rhythm. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception until June 2020. We used Python 3.8.3 and R 3.6.2 for data analysis. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence with the GRADE framework. We included 28 RCTs. Compared with no treatment or rate control, Class III AADs [odds ratio (OR): 2.41; 95% credible interval (CrI): 1.37 to 4.62, high certainty] and amiodarone (OR: 2.58; 95% CrI: 1.54 to 4.37, high certainty) improved restoration of sinus rhythm. Amiodarone improved long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm when compared with no treatment or rate control (OR: 5.37; 95% CrI: 4.00-7.39, high certainty), Class Ic (OR: 1.89; 95% CrI: 1.05-3.45, moderate certainty) and Class III AADs (OR: 2.19; 95% CrI: 1.39-3.26, high certainty).
Before electrical cardioversion of AF, treatment with Class III AADs or amiodarone improves the acute restoration of sinus rhythm. Amiodarone is most likely to improve the maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion, but Class Ic and Class III AADs are also effective.
本研究旨在比较不同类别的抗心律失常药物(AADs)在接受电复律的心房颤动(AF)患者中的预处理效果。
我们对比较 AF 患者电复律时不同 AAD 效果的随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统评价和网络荟萃分析(NMA)。我们将 AAD 分为五个网络节点:无治疗或心率控制、IA 类、IC 类、III 类和胺碘酮。结局包括(i)急性恢复和(ii)窦性节律维持。我们从创建到 2020 年 6 月在 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 进行了检索。我们使用 Python 3.8.3 和 R 3.6.2 进行数据分析。我们使用 GRADE 框架评估证据的总体确定性。我们纳入了 28 项 RCT。与无治疗或心率控制相比,III 类 AAD[比值比(OR):2.41;95%可信区间(CrI):1.37 至 4.62,高确定性]和胺碘酮(OR:2.58;95% CrI:1.54 至 4.37,高确定性)可提高窦性节律的恢复。与无治疗或心率控制相比,胺碘酮可提高窦性节律的长期维持率(OR:5.37;95% CrI:4.00-7.39,高确定性)、IC 类(OR:1.89;95% CrI:1.05-3.45,中等确定性)和 III 类 AAD(OR:2.19;95% CrI:1.39-3.26,高确定性)。
在 AF 电复律之前,使用 III 类 AAD 或胺碘酮治疗可提高窦性节律的急性恢复。胺碘酮最有可能提高电复律后的窦性节律维持率,但 IC 类和 III 类 AAD 也有效。