首页> 外文期刊>Racional?naa Farmakoterapia v Kardiologii >Efficacy and safety of sinus rhythm restoration with amiodarone and propafenone in outpatients, economic aspects (based on data of N.A. Semashko Northern Medical Clinical Center)
【24h】

Efficacy and safety of sinus rhythm restoration with amiodarone and propafenone in outpatients, economic aspects (based on data of N.A. Semashko Northern Medical Clinical Center)

机译:胺碘酮和普罗帕酮在门诊患者中恢复窦性心律的功效和安全性,经济方面(基于N.A. Semashko北部医学临床中心的数据)

获取原文
           

摘要

Aim. To study efficacy and safety of sinus rhythm restoration with amiodarone and propafenone in outpatients with recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF), and to estimate pharmacoeconomic efficiency of such cardioversion in comparison with hospital treatment. Material and methods. Patients (n=199; aged 59.2±1.36) with paroxysmal (73.9%) or persistent (26.1%) AF were included into the multicenter prospective study. Follow-up period was 13.14 months (min 1 month, max 36 months). Patients with arrhythmia relapse 48 h received outpatient cardioversion with amiodarone or propafenone orally. Daily outpatient examination, including ECG and blood pressure monitoring every 30-60 min, was carried out to evaluate efficacy of cardioversion and hemodynamics. Phone contact with patients was available. Patients with unstable hemodynamics received cardioversion in hospital. Patients received propafenone in cumulative dose of 600 mg (150-300 mg every hour), and amiodarone 600-800 mg daily. The cost/effectiveness ratio (CER) was estimated. This ratio shows the cost of one unit of effect. Results. Outpatient cardioversion with amiodarone was started 24 h earlier (p=0.029) and with propafenone — 4.5 h earlier (p=0.002) than that in hospital. The average dose of amiodarone in ambulatory cardioversion was 1.3 times less (713.7±84,62 mg, p=0.345) than that in hospital cardioversion. Outpatient treatment with amiodarone restored sinus rhythm 8.7 h earlier, and with propafenone - 3.5 h earlier than the same treatments in hospital. Efficiency of hospital cardioversion with amiodarone was 70%, with propafenone - 80%, and efficiency of outpatient cardioversion — 96,1% and 98,4%, respectively. Outpatient treatment did not cause any severe side effects. Expenses for outpatient cardioversion made up 143 724.25 rubles, and for hospital cardioversion — 92 870.47 rubles. Average treatment costs for one patient in hospital was 6 times greater than for an outpatient. Outpatient cardioversion had the lowest CER (~1300 rubles%). Conclusion. Outpatient cardioversion with amiodarone or propafenone is not only effective and safe, but also economically feasible.
机译:目标。目的研究胺碘酮和普罗帕酮在门诊复发性房颤患者中的窦性心律恢复的疗效和安全性,并评估与医院治疗相比这种电复律的药效。材料与方法。多中心前瞻性研究纳入了阵发性(73.9%)或持续性(26.1%)AF的患者(n = 199; 59.2±1.36岁)。随访时间为13.14个月(最少1个月,最多36个月)。心律失常复发<48小时的患者接受胺碘酮或普罗帕酮口服门律复律。每天进行一次门诊检查,包括每30-60分钟进行一次心电图检查和血压监测,以评估心脏复律和血液动力学的有效性。可以与患者进行电话联系。血液动力学不稳定的患者在医院接受了心脏复律。患者接受普罗帕酮的累积剂量为600毫克(每小时150-300毫克),胺碘酮每天600-800毫克。估算了成本/效益比(CER)。此比率表示一个效果单位的成本。结果。胺碘酮的门诊心脏复律开始时间比医院早24小时(p = 0.029),而普罗帕酮则比住院时间早4.5 h(p = 0.002)。动态心脏复律时胺碘酮的平均剂量比医院心脏复律时的平均剂量低1.3倍(713.7±84,62 mg,p = 0.345)。胺碘酮的门诊治疗可使窦性心律恢复早8.7小时,而普罗帕酮则比医院的相同治疗早3.5小时。胺碘酮使医院心脏复律的效率为70%,普罗帕酮为80%,门诊心脏复律的效率分别为96.1%和98.4%。门诊治疗未引起任何严重的副作用。门诊心脏复律费用为143 724.25卢布,医院心脏复律费用为92 870.47卢布。住院一名患者的平均治疗费用是门诊患者的6倍。门诊心脏复律的CER最低(〜1300卢布%)。结论。胺碘酮或普罗帕酮的门诊心脏复律不仅有效,安全,而且在经济上可行。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号