Suppr超能文献

卡维地洛与美托洛尔治疗室性快速心律失常患者的对比研究

Carvedilol versus Metoprolol in Patients with Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias.

作者信息

Schupp Tobias, Behnes Michael, Abumayyaleh Mohammad, Weidner Kathrin, Rusnak Jonas, Mashayekhi Kambis, Bertsch Thomas, Akin Ibrahim

机构信息

First Department of Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.

Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Mediclin Heart Centre Lahr, 77933 Lahr, Germany.

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2022 Aug 16;9(8):274. doi: 10.3390/jcdd9080274.

Abstract

The study investigates the prognostic role of treatment with carvedilol as compared to metoprolol in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. A large retrospective registry was used including consecutive patients on beta-blocker (BB) treatment with episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or fibrillation (VF) from 2002 to 2015. Patients treated with carvedilol were compared to patients with metoprolol. The primary prognostic outcome was all-cause mortality at three years. Secondary endpoints comprised a composite arrhythmic endpoint (i.e., recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies) and cardiac rehospitalization. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, multivariable Cox regression analyses, and propensity score matching were applied for statistics. There were 1098 patients included, 80% treated with metoprolol and 20% with carvedilol. Patients with carvedilol were older, more often presenting with VT (78% vs. 62%; = 0.001) and with more advanced stages of heart failure. Treatment with carvedilol was associated with comparable all-cause mortality compared to metoprolol (20% vs. 16%, log rank = 0.234; HR = 1.229; 95% CI 0.874-1.728; = 0.235). However, secondary endpoints (i.e., composite arrhythmic endpoint: 32% vs. 17%; = 0.001 and cardiac rehospitalization: 25% vs. 14%; = 0.001) were more frequently observed in patients with carvedilol, which was still evident after multivariable adjustment. After propensity score matching ( = 194 patients with carvedilol and metoprolol), no further differences regarding the distribution of baseline characteristics were observed. Within the propensity-score-matched cohort, higher rates of the composite arrhythmic endpoint were still observed in patients treated with carvedilol, whereas the risk of cardiac rehospitalization was not affected by the type of beta-blocker treatment. In conclusion, carvedilol and metoprolol are associated with comparable all-cause mortality in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias, whereas the risk of the composite arrhythmic endpoint was increased in patients with carvedilol therapy.

摘要

本研究调查与美托洛尔相比,卡维地洛治疗对室性快速心律失常患者的预后作用。使用了一个大型回顾性登记数据库,纳入了2002年至2015年期间接受β受体阻滞剂(BB)治疗且有室性心动过速(VT)或颤动(VF)发作的连续患者。将接受卡维地洛治疗的患者与接受美托洛尔治疗的患者进行比较。主要预后结局是三年时的全因死亡率。次要终点包括复合心律失常终点(即室性快速心律失常复发、合适的植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)治疗)和心脏再住院。采用Kaplan-Meier生存曲线、多变量Cox回归分析和倾向得分匹配进行统计学分析。共纳入1098例患者,80%接受美托洛尔治疗,20%接受卡维地洛治疗。接受卡维地洛治疗的患者年龄更大,更常出现VT(78%对62%;P = 0.001)且心力衰竭阶段更 advanced。与美托洛尔相比,卡维地洛治疗的全因死亡率相当(20%对16%,对数秩检验P = 0.234;HR = 1.229;95%CI 0.874 - 1.728;P = 0.235)。然而,在接受卡维地洛治疗的患者中更频繁地观察到次要终点(即复合心律失常终点:32%对17%;P = 0.001和心脏再住院:25%对14%;P = 0.001),多变量调整后仍然明显。倾向得分匹配后(卡维地洛和美托洛尔各194例患者),未观察到基线特征分布的进一步差异。在倾向得分匹配队列中,接受卡维地洛治疗的患者中复合心律失常终点的发生率仍然较高,而β受体阻滞剂治疗类型对心脏再住院风险没有影响。总之,卡维地洛和美托洛尔对室性快速心律失常患者的全因死亡率相当,而接受卡维地洛治疗的患者复合心律失常终点的风险增加。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e80d/9410246/b93ee3c43aaf/jcdd-09-00274-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验