Maison-Blanche P, Brembilla-Perrot B, Fauchier J P, Babuty D, Garnier L F, Rouesnel P, Breuillac J C, Funck F, Scheck F, Peraudeau P, Medvedowsky J L
Service de Cardiologie, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.
Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris). 1997 Feb;46(2):109-16.
Although paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias are the commonest form of arrhythmia, their therapeutic management still remains controversial. Seventy one patients were included in a multicentre, randomized double-blind, double-placebo study, in parallel groups (37 in group C and 34 in group F) to compare the efficacy of cibenzoline (C) and flecainide (F), administered orally, in the prevention of recurrent atrial arrhythmia. The arrhythmia usually consisted of atrial fibrillation (n = 65), while 6 patients presented with paroxysmal atrial flutter. The mean daily dosages were 221 +/- 60 mg (C) and 165 +/- 49 mg (F). The mean age was 63 +/- 12 years in group C and 63 +/- 16 years in group F. In this trial, atrial arrhythmia was idiopathic in almost two-thirds of cases. The duration of follow-up of this study was 6 months, during which recurrences of arrhythmia were evaluated in terms of the symptoms experienced and in terms of ECG and Holter examinations repeated at the 3rd and 6th months. Supplementary ECG and Holter examinations were also performed in the presence of a clinical suspicion of recurrent symptoms. Comparison of the percentages of patients not developing a documented recurrence and who tolerated treatment, by Kaplan-Meler curves, showed a significant difference between cibenzoline (58%) and flecainide (56%). In the not-responders, the mean time to recurrence was 75 +/- 48 days in group C and 75 +/- 62 days in group F(NS). Six patients dropped out of the trial because of adverse events, including 3 cardiac adverse events (2 case of ventricular proarrhythmic activity). Four extracardiac adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment in group C. In conclusion, the efficacy of cibenzoline and flecainlde in the secondary prevention of atrial arrhythmia was found to be comparable, with 58% and 58% of patients in sinus rhythm, respectively, with a follow-up of 6 months.
虽然阵发性房性心律失常是最常见的心律失常形式,但其治疗管理仍存在争议。71例患者被纳入一项多中心、随机双盲、双安慰剂平行组研究(C组37例,F组34例),以比较口服西苯唑啉(C)和氟卡尼(F)预防复发性房性心律失常的疗效。心律失常通常为心房颤动(n = 65),6例为阵发性心房扑动。平均日剂量分别为221±60mg(C)和165±49mg(F)。C组平均年龄为63±12岁,F组为63±16岁。在该试验中,近三分之二的病例房性心律失常为特发性。本研究的随访期为6个月,在此期间,根据患者经历的症状以及在第3个月和第6个月重复进行的心电图和动态心电图检查来评估心律失常的复发情况。在临床怀疑有复发症状时也进行补充心电图和动态心电图检查。通过Kaplan-Meler曲线比较未出现有记录的复发且耐受治疗的患者百分比,结果显示西苯唑啉(58%)和氟卡尼(56%)之间存在显著差异。在无反应者中,C组复发的平均时间为75±48天,F组为75±62天(无显著性差异)。6例患者因不良事件退出试验,其中包括3例心脏不良事件(2例心室促心律失常活动)。4例心外不良事件导致C组停止治疗。总之,随访6个月时发现,西苯唑啉和氟卡尼在房性心律失常二级预防中的疗效相当,分别有58%和58%的患者恢复窦性心律。