Tsai C F, Chen S A, Tai C T, Chiang C E, Ding Y A, Chang M S
Department of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, School of Medicine, and Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Int J Cardiol. 1998 Mar 13;64(1):47-55. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5273(98)00004-7.
The long-term prognosis, including risks of arrhythmic recurrence of idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (VF), is uncertain; moreover, the role of electrophysiologic study in the diagnosis and guiding of antiarrhythmic drugs therapy for idiopathic VF remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to study the clinical features, electrophysiologic characteristics and long-term clinical outcomes of six consecutive patients (five males) who had at least one episode of aborted cardiac arrest (5 patients) or syncope (1 patients) with documentation of ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the absence of apparent heart disease. Idiopathic VF was diagnosed by exclusion. All patients underwent the electrophysiologic study including intravenous antiarrhythmic drug testing. Recurrences of VF after therapy and the long-term outcomes were assessed. The mean age at the first episode was 43+/-19 years (range from 16 to 63 years). All patients had sustained VF induced by double (3 patients) or triple (3 patients) ventricular extrastimuli at a paced cycle length of 400 or 500 ms from the right ventricular apex. Intravenous procainamide and/or mexiletine could suppress the reinduction of sustained VF in 4 (67%) of 6 patients. Recurrence of VF (documented VF attack, sudden cardiac arrest or syncope) was observed in 3 (100%) of 3 patients who received procainamide or mexiletine alone. Four patients (including 3 patients who experienced recurrence) received amiodarone alone or in combination with mexiletine, and these drugs could effectively prevent recurrence of VF. One patient with exercise-induced VF remained asymptomatic without any treatment during a follow-up period of 95 months. Another patient received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator without concomitant antiarrhythmic drug therapy and had no discharge of electrical shock during 28 months of follow-up. During a mean follow-up period of 64+/-40 months (range from 28 to 128 months), all the patients were alive except patient No. 2 who died of acute hepatic failure. In conclusion, electrophysiologic study is a reliable diagnostic method, but it was of limited value in guiding antiarrhythmic drug therapy for preventing recurrence of idiopathic VF. Class I drug alone was associated with a high recurrence rate (100%) despite predictions that it would be effective by the electrophysiologic study. Amiodarone alone or in combination with mexiletine effectively prevented the recurrence of VF during the long-term follow-up along with a favourable outcome.
特发性室颤的长期预后,包括心律失常复发风险尚不确定;此外,电生理检查在特发性室颤的诊断及抗心律失常药物治疗指导中的作用仍存在争议。本研究旨在探讨6例连续患者(5例男性)的临床特征、电生理特点及长期临床结局,这些患者至少有1次心脏骤停未遂(5例)或晕厥(1例),且记录到室颤(VF),无明显心脏病证据。特发性室颤通过排除法诊断。所有患者均接受了包括静脉抗心律失常药物试验在内的电生理检查。评估治疗后室颤复发情况及长期结局。首次发作时的平均年龄为43±19岁(范围16至63岁)。所有患者在右心室尖部以400或500毫秒的起搏周期长度进行双次(3例)或三次(3例)心室期外刺激时均可诱发持续性室颤。静脉注射普鲁卡因胺和/或美西律可使6例患者中的4例(67%)持续性室颤再次诱发受到抑制。单独接受普鲁卡因胺或美西律治疗的3例患者中,有3例(100%)出现室颤复发(记录到室颤发作、心脏骤停未遂或晕厥)。4例患者(包括3例复发患者)单独接受胺碘酮治疗或与美西律联合治疗,这些药物可有效预防室颤复发。1例运动诱发室颤的患者在95个月的随访期内未接受任何治疗,仍无症状。另1例患者植入了植入式心律转复除颤器,未同时接受抗心律失常药物治疗,在28个月的随访期内未发生电击放电。在平均64±40个月(范围28至128个月)的随访期内,除2号患者死于急性肝衰竭外,所有患者均存活。总之,电生理检查是一种可靠的诊断方法,但在指导预防特发性室颤复发的抗心律失常药物治疗方面价值有限。尽管电生理检查预测I类药物有效,但单独使用I类药物时复发率较高(100%)。胺碘酮单独或与美西律联合使用在长期随访中有效预防了室颤复发,并取得了良好的结局。