Suppr超能文献

美托洛尔与索他洛尔治疗持续性室性心动过速的比较。

Metoprolol versus sotalol in the treatment of sustained ventricular tachycardia.

作者信息

Antz M, Cappato R, Kuck K H

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Eppendorf, Germany.

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1995 Oct;26(4):627-35. doi: 10.1097/00005344-199510000-00019.

Abstract

The efficacy of sotalol in the treatment of sustained ventricular arrhythmias has been proved; however, whether its antiarrhythmic effect is due to a beta-blocking activity, a class III antiarrhythmic activity, or a combination of both is not known. We conducted a prospective randomized study to compare the effects of metoprolol, a "pure" beta-blocking agent, and of sotalol, a beta-blocking agent with additional class III antiarrhythmic properties, in 34 consecutive patients with documented sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) unrelated to transient causes. After undergoing baseline programmed electrical stimulation (PES-1) to assess arrhythmia inducibility, the patients were randomly assigned to a (double-blind) treatment of either metoprolol (16 patients) or sotalol (18 patients). Before the chronic regimen was initiated, arrhythmia inducibility was reassessed after the intravenous administration of either 0.15 mg/kg metoprolol or 1.5 mg/kg sotalol (PES-2), according to drug assignment. During the chronic oral regimen, a third PES (PES-3) was performed after a median follow-up of 72 days. Resting and exercise ECG, Holter monitoring and echocardiography were performed at baseline and during follow-up. During a 2-year follow-up, a non-fatal arrhythmia recurred in 1 patient of the metoprolol arm and in 5 patients of the sotalol arm; 1 patient in the latter group died suddenly 2 months after the recurrence, while receiving amiodarone therapy. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the incidence of arrhythmia recurrence, sudden death, or total mortality between the two groups. During PES-1, a sustained ventricular arrhythmia was inducible in 18 of 34 patients (53%), 8 in the metoprolol and 10 in the sotalol arm.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

摘要

索他洛尔治疗持续性室性心律失常的疗效已得到证实;然而,其抗心律失常作用是由于β受体阻滞活性、Ⅲ类抗心律失常活性还是两者的结合尚不清楚。我们进行了一项前瞻性随机研究,比较了“纯”β受体阻滞剂美托洛尔和具有额外Ⅲ类抗心律失常特性的β受体阻滞剂索他洛尔对34例记录在案的与短暂病因无关的持续性单形性室性心动过速(VT)患者的影响。在进行基线程序电刺激(PES-1)以评估心律失常的诱发性后,患者被随机分配接受美托洛尔(16例患者)或索他洛尔(18例患者)的(双盲)治疗。在开始长期治疗方案之前,根据药物分配情况,在静脉注射0.15mg/kg美托洛尔或1.5mg/kg索他洛尔后(PES-2)重新评估心律失常的诱发性。在长期口服治疗期间,在中位随访72天后进行第三次PES(PES-3)。在基线和随访期间进行静息和运动心电图、动态心电图监测和超声心动图检查。在2年的随访期间,美托洛尔组有1例患者和索他洛尔组有5例患者再次发生非致命性心律失常;后一组中有1例患者在复发后2个月突然死亡,当时正在接受胺碘酮治疗。意向性分析显示两组之间心律失常复发、猝死或总死亡率的发生率没有差异。在PES-1期间,34例患者中有18例(53%)可诱发持续性室性心律失常,美托洛尔组8例,索他洛尔组10例。(摘要截短于250字)

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