...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Atrial Fibrillation >Rate versus Rhythm Control in Patients with Normal to Mild Left Atrial Enlarge-ment: Insights from the AFFIRM Trial
【24h】

Rate versus Rhythm Control in Patients with Normal to Mild Left Atrial Enlarge-ment: Insights from the AFFIRM Trial

机译:正常至轻度左心房扩大患者的心率与心律控制:AFFIRM试验的启示

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: Atrial fibrillation is the most commonly encountered sustained arrhythmia and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several trials have demonstrated that no mortality benefit exists when choosing a rhythm-control strategy over a rate-control strategy, with some trials suggesting an increase in mortality. Using the AFFIRM trial database we sought to determine the effect of rhythm control strategy in patients with normal or mild atrial enlargement. Methods: AFFIRM Trial database was used to evaluate the effect of rhythm-control strategy com-pared to rate-control strategy in a subgroup of patients with normal to mild left atrial (LA) enlargement. The primary outcome measures of this study were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization/ED visit. Results: We identified a subgroup of subjects from the AFFIRM trial with normal or mild LA en-largement (n=2022 of 4060 total subjects). Subjects in the rhythm-control group (n= 1022) had an increased risk of all-cause mortality by 34% (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08-1.67; P=0.007) and hospitalization/ED visits by 10% (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-2.16; P=0.001) compared to rate control group (n= 1000). Subjects in the rhythm-control group (n= 334) who was on amiodarone as initial anti-arrhythmic medications had an increased risk of all-cause mortality by 39% (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.04-1.85; P=0.027) compared to rate control group (n= 1000). In contrast, subjects in the rhythm-control group (n= 322) who was on sotalol as initial anti-arrhythmic medication did not have an increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to rate control group (n= 1000). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that rhythm-control strategy increases the risk of mortality and hospitalization in a subgroup of patients with normal to mild atrial enlargement com-pared to rate-control strategy. Amiodarone use in this subgroup of patients likely drove these findings.
机译:背景:房颤是最常遇到的持续性心律不齐,并与明显的发病率和死亡率相关。几项试验表明,选择节律控制策略而不是心率控制策略时,没有死亡率优势,有些试验表明死亡率增加。使用AFFIRM试验数据库,我们试图确定节律控制策略对正常或轻度心房扩大患者的效果。方法:AFFIRM试验数据库用于评估节律控制策略与心律控制策略对亚组正常至轻度左心房扩大(LA)患者的效果。这项研究的主要结局指标是全因死亡率,心血管疾病死亡率,非心血管疾病死亡率以及住院/急诊就诊。结果:我们从AFFIRM试验中确定了正常或轻度LA扩大的亚组受试者(n = 2060名总受试者中的2022名)。节律对照组(n = 1022)的全因死亡率风险增加了34%(RR 1.34,95%CI 1.08-1.67; P = 0.007),住院/急诊就诊增加了10%(RR 1.10) ,与比率对照组(n = 1000)相比,95%CI 1.05-2.16; P = <0.001)。与初始抗心律失常药物一起使用胺碘酮的节律对照组(n = 334)的全因死亡率增加了39%(RR 1.39,95%CI 1.04-1.85; P = 0.027)给对照组(n = 1000)评分。相反,在节律对照组(n = 322)中以索他洛尔作为初始抗心律不齐药物的受试者与比率对照组(n = 1000)相比,全因死亡率没有增加。结论:这项研究表明,与心率控制策略相比,节律控制策略增加了正常至轻度心房扩大患者亚组的死亡率和住院风险。在这一亚组患者中使用胺碘酮可能推动了这些发现。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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