Suppr超能文献

非持续性室性心动过速和冠心病的轻度症状及无症状患者的风险分层与临床结局:一项前瞻性单中心研究

Risk stratification and clinical outcome of minimally symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and coronary disease: a prospective single-center study.

作者信息

Giorgberidze I, Saksena S, Krol R B, Munsif A N, Kolettis T, Mathew P, Varanasi S, Prakash A, Delfaut P, Lewis C B

机构信息

Cardiac Pacemaker and Arrhythmia Service, Eastern Heart Institute, Passaic, New Jersey, USA.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 1997 Sep 11;80(5B):3F-9F. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(97)00478-5.

Abstract

The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) showed improved survival with defibrillator therapy but was restricted to coronary artery disease patients with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) and inducible nonsupressible VT. The outcome of patients without inducible VT or inducible but suppressed VT still remains unclear. We performed risk stratification at electrophysiologic (EP) study in 111 consecutive unselected patients with nonsustained VT and coronary artery disease and randomized them to drug or device therapy. Follow-up on selected therapy was 1-71 (mean 27 +/- 20) months. Of 111 patients, 39 patients (35%) had inducible sustained VT at baseline EP study and were stratified to a "higher" risk group (group 1) for sudden death. In 9 of these patients (group 1A), sustained VT was suppressed with class IA antiarrhythmic drugs; in the remaining 30 patients (group 1B) sustained VT was not suppressed with class IA antiarrhythmic drugs. The other 72 of 111 patients (65%) had no inducible sustained VT at EP study and were stratified to a "lower"-risk group (group 2) for sudden death. Mean LVEF in group 1 was 30 +/- 10% versus 37 +/- 9% in group 2 (p = 0.001). Selected therapy in group 1 was an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (16 patients) or guided drug therapy (electrophysiologically guided class I antiarrhythmic drugs = 7 patients; Holter-guided class III antiarrhythmic drugs = 16 patients). In group 2, empiric drug therapy included beta blockers in 29 patients or Holter-guided class III antiarrhythmic drugs in 17 patients, with no antiarrhythmic drug therapy being administered in 26 patients. Mean LVEF tended to be lower in patients receiving class III antiarrhythmic drug therapy (34 +/- 12%) than in patients receiving beta blockers (40 +/- 10%, p = 0.06). Three-year total survival was comparable in group 1 (70%) and in group 2 (81%), but sudden cardiac death mortality tended to be lower in group 1 versus group 2 (0 vs 9%, p = 0.09). Patients receiving class III antiarrhythmic therapy had significantly higher 3-year all cause (40%, p = 0.04) and sudden death (25%, p = 0.06) mortality than patients receiving beta blockers (17% and 8% respectively) or no antiarrhythmic drug therapy (4% and 0%, respectively). The following conclusions can be drawn from this analysis: (1) Electrophysiologically guided drug therapy and implantable defibrillators can minimize the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with coronary artery disease and inducible sustained VT stratified to higher risk of sudden death. A comparable outcome with respect to sudden death prevention in drug-suppressed or drug-refractory patients suggests limited prognostic benefit of class IA drug testing. (2) Lower-risk patients with severely depressed LVEF and minimal or no symptoms do not have a favorable outcome with respect to sudden and all-cause mortality on Holter-guided class III drug therapy. However, asymptomatic patients with mildly depressed left ventricular function have low sudden death event rates on beta blocker or no antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

摘要

多中心自动除颤器植入试验(MADIT)表明,除颤器治疗可提高生存率,但该试验仅限于患有非持续性室性心动过速(NSVT)且可诱发不可抑制性室性心动过速的冠心病患者。对于无诱发性室性心动过速或诱发性但可抑制性室性心动过速的患者,其预后仍不明确。我们对111例连续入选的患有非持续性室性心动过速和冠心病的患者进行了电生理(EP)研究以进行风险分层,并将他们随机分为药物治疗组或器械治疗组。所选治疗的随访时间为1 - 71(平均27±20)个月。在111例患者中,39例患者(35%)在基线EP研究时有可诱发的持续性室性心动过速,被分层为猝死“高”风险组(1组)。在这9例患者(1A组)中,持续性室性心动过速被IA类抗心律失常药物抑制;其余30例患者(1B组)的持续性室性心动过速未被IA类抗心律失常药物抑制。111例患者中的另外72例(65%)在EP研究中无可诱发的持续性室性心动过速,被分层为猝死“低”风险组(2组)。1组的平均左心室射血分数(LVEF)为30±10%,而2组为37±9%(p = 0.001)。1组的所选治疗为植入式心脏复律除颤器(16例患者)或指导性药物治疗(电生理指导的I类抗心律失常药物 = 7例患者;动态心电图指导的III类抗心律失常药物 = 16例患者)。在2组中,经验性药物治疗包括29例患者使用β受体阻滞剂或17例患者使用动态心电图指导的III类抗心律失常药物,26例患者未接受抗心律失常药物治疗。接受III类抗心律失常药物治疗的患者的平均LVEF(34±12%)往往低于接受β受体阻滞剂治疗的患者(40±10%,p = 0.06)。1组(70%)和2组(81%)的三年总生存率相当,但1组的心脏性猝死死亡率相对于2组有降低趋势(0%对9%,p = 0.09)。接受III类抗心律失常治疗的患者的三年全因死亡率(40%,p = 0.04)和心脏性猝死死亡率(25%,p = 0.06)显著高于接受β受体阻滞剂治疗的患者(分别为17%和8%)或未接受抗心律失常药物治疗的患者(分别为4%和0%)。从该分析中可得出以下结论:(1)电生理指导的药物治疗和植入式除颤器可将患有冠心病且有可诱发的持续性室性心动过速、被分层为猝死高风险的患者的心脏性猝死风险降至最低。在药物抑制或药物难治性患者中,在预防猝死方面的可比结果表明IA类药物检测的预后益处有限。(2)LVEF严重降低且症状轻微或无症状的低风险患者,在动态心电图指导的III类药物治疗下,在猝死和全因死亡率方面没有良好的预后。然而,左心室功能轻度降低的无症状患者在使用β受体阻滞剂或未接受抗心律失常药物治疗时,心脏性猝死事件发生率较低。

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