Middlekauff H R, Stevenson W G, Gornbein J A
Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Arch Intern Med. 1995 May 8;155(9):913-20.
Patients with atrial fibrillation compared with those with sinus rhythm are at increased risk for thromboembolism, often mandating therapy directed at thromboembolism prevention. However, the safest, most efficacious strategy to prevent thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation is unknown. We developed a decision analysis to compare the risks and benefits of two common clinical strategies to prevent thromboembolism in the patient with atrial fibrillation: (1) sinus rhythm maintenance with quinidine sulfate or with amiodarone hydrochloride after cardioversion and (2) long-term anticoagulation with warfarin sodium.
A search was conducted of the English-language MEDLINE databases of the National Library of Medicine dated 1966 through December 1992. The search was conducted by intersecting "quinidine," "warfarin," or "amiodarone" with "atrial fibrillation." Six of 249 articles concerning quinidine and five of 20 articles concerning warfarin were judged by multiple reviewers to meet predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. To our knowledge, no randomized, placebo-controlled trials of amiodarone therapy for atrial fibrillation have been published. Five of 112 identified articles concerning amiodarone involved nonrandomized trials that met the remaining selection criteria and were included in this analysis.
Thromboembolic events and fatal nonthromboembolic adverse events during the course of therapy (defined as fatal proarrhythmia, fatal hemorrhage, and fatal noncardiac toxic effects) were considered to have equivalent weight. The total risk during therapy, defined as thromboembolic and fatal nonthromboembolic adverse events during the course of therapy, was evaluated over a range of baseline thromboembolism risks, from 1% to 20% per patient-year. Quinidine therapy compared with no therapy was associated with increased total risk, unless baseline thromboembolism risk exceeded 11% per patient-year. Total risk during warfarin therapy was less than total risk during quinidine therapy for the entire range of baseline thromboembolism risks, from 1% to 20% per patient-year. Total risk during warfarin or amiodarone therapy was similar and less than that with no therapy for the entire range of baseline risks.
Based on data from randomized, controlled trials of quinidine and warfarin, warfarin therapy appears to be the safest strategy for thromboembolism prevention in the patient with atrial fibrillation. The role of low-dose amiodarone therapy appears promising and warrants further study in randomized, controlled trials.
与窦性心律患者相比,房颤患者发生血栓栓塞的风险增加,通常需要采取预防血栓栓塞的治疗措施。然而,预防与房颤相关的血栓栓塞的最安全、最有效的策略尚不清楚。我们开展了一项决策分析,以比较两种常见临床策略预防房颤患者血栓栓塞的风险和益处:(1)复律后用硫酸奎尼丁或盐酸胺碘酮维持窦性心律;(2)用华法林钠进行长期抗凝治疗。
检索了美国国立医学图书馆1966年至1992年12月的英文MEDLINE数据库。检索通过将“奎尼丁”、“华法林”或“胺碘酮”与“房颤”交叉进行。249篇关于奎尼丁的文章中有6篇,20篇关于华法林的文章中有5篇,经多位评审员判断符合预定的纳入和排除标准。据我们所知,尚无关于胺碘酮治疗房颤的随机、安慰剂对照试验发表。112篇已识别的关于胺碘酮的文章中有5篇涉及符合其余选择标准的非随机试验,并纳入本分析。
治疗过程中的血栓栓塞事件和致命性非血栓栓塞性不良事件(定义为致命性心律失常、致命性出血和致命性非心脏毒性作用)被认为具有同等重要性。治疗期间的总风险,定义为治疗过程中的血栓栓塞和致命性非血栓栓塞性不良事件,在一系列基线血栓栓塞风险范围内进行评估,每位患者每年的风险范围为1%至20%。与不治疗相比,奎尼丁治疗会增加总风险,除非基线血栓栓塞风险超过每位患者每年11%。在每位患者每年1%至20%的整个基线血栓栓塞风险范围内,华法林治疗期间的总风险低于奎尼丁治疗期间的总风险。在整个基线风险范围内,华法林或胺碘酮治疗期间的总风险相似且低于不治疗时的风险。
基于奎尼丁和华法林的随机对照试验数据,华法林治疗似乎是预防房颤患者血栓栓塞的最安全策略。低剂量胺碘酮治疗的作用似乎很有前景,值得在随机对照试验中进一步研究。