Suppr超能文献

苯茚二酮与氟卡胺预防阵发性房性心律失常的双盲随机研究

Cibenzoline versus flecainide in the prevention of paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias: a double-blind randomized study.

作者信息

Babuty D, D'Hautefeuille B, Scheck F, Mycinsky C, Pruvost P, Peraudeau P

机构信息

Service de Cardiologie, Hôpital Trousseau, Tours, France.

出版信息

J Clin Pharmacol. 1995 May;35(5):471-7. doi: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04090.x.

Abstract

In a randomized, double-blind, parallel clinical trial, the authors tested and compared flecainide and cibenzoline, a new antiarrhythmic drug, on atrial arrhythmias. Sixty-eight patients (36 men, 32 women, mean age 62.5 +/- 1.6 years) with documented symptomatic paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias (fibrillation in 56, flutter in 12) were recruited and received either cibenzoline 260 mg/day (n = 33) or flecainide 200 mg/day (n = 35). Patients were assessed with physical examination, resting ECG, 24-hour ambulatory ECG recording, two-dimensional echocardiography, and standard biologic titrations before the inclusion day, and 3 months and 6 months after the randomization day. Sixteen patients were withdrawn (7 were lost to follow-up, 7 had side effects, 2 had another medical event). Seventeen patients had documented recurrence of atrial arrhythmia (9 in the cibenzoline group, 8 in the flecainide group) during the study. The efficacy of cibenzoline and flecainide for preventing recurrence of atrial arrhythmias was not significantly different (62.5% versus 71.4%). Eleven patients complained of one or more side effects (cibenzoline, n = 6; flecainide, n = 5), justifying leaving the trial in 6 cases (cibenzoline, n = 3; flecainide, n = 3). Two ventricular proarrhythmic effects were observed. No atrial proarrhythmic effects were reported. The efficacy of cibenzoline and flecainide for preventing atrial arrhythmia is good and similar during a follow-up period of 6 months. In view of these results, cibenzoline may be administered first to prevent atrial arrhythmia.

摘要

在一项随机、双盲、平行临床试验中,作者对氟卡尼和一种新型抗心律失常药物西苯唑啉在房性心律失常方面进行了测试和比较。招募了68例有症状性阵发性房性心律失常记录的患者(36例男性,32例女性,平均年龄62.5±1.6岁)(56例为房颤,12例为房扑),并给予西苯唑啉260mg/天(n = 33)或氟卡尼200mg/天(n = 35)。在入选日前、随机分组日后3个月和6个月,通过体格检查、静息心电图、24小时动态心电图记录、二维超声心动图和标准生物学滴定对患者进行评估。16例患者退出研究(7例失访,7例出现副作用,2例发生其他医疗事件)。在研究期间,17例患者记录到房性心律失常复发(西苯唑啉组9例,氟卡尼组8例)。西苯唑啉和氟卡尼预防房性心律失常复发的疗效无显著差异(62.5%对71.4%)。11例患者抱怨有1种或多种副作用(西苯唑啉组6例,氟卡尼组5例),其中6例(西苯唑啉组3例,氟卡尼组3例)因此退出试验。观察到2例室性促心律失常效应。未报告房性促心律失常效应。在6个月的随访期内,西苯唑啉和氟卡尼预防房性心律失常的疗效良好且相似。鉴于这些结果,可首先给予西苯唑啉预防房性心律失常。

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