首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >Comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy and radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.
【24h】

Comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy and radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.

机译:阵发性心房颤动患者抗心律失常药物治疗与射频导管消融的比较:一项随机对照试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

CONTEXT: Antiarrhythmic drugs are commonly used for prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) despite inconsistent efficacy and frequent adverse effects. Catheter ablation has been proposed as an alternative treatment for paroxysmal AF. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy (ADT) in treating symptomatic paroxysmal AF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, multicenter, randomized (2:1), unblinded, Bayesian-designed study conducted at 19 hospitals of 167 patients who did not respond to at least 1 antiarrhythmic drug and who experienced at least 3 AF episodes within 6 months before randomization. Enrollment occurred between October 25, 2004, and October 11, 2007, with the last follow-up on January 19, 2009. INTERVENTION: Catheter ablation (n = 106) or ADT (n = 61), with assessment for effectiveness in a comparable 9-month follow-up period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to protocol-defined treatment failure. The proportion of patients who experienced major treatment-related adverse events within 30 days of catheter ablation or ADT was also reported. RESULTS: At the end of the 9-month effectiveness evaluation period, 66% of patients in the catheter ablation group remained free from protocol-defined treatment failure compared with 16% of patients treated with ADT. The hazard ratio of catheter ablation to ADT was 0.30 (95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.47; P < .001). Major 30-day treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 of 57 patients (8.8%) treated with ADT and 5 of 103 patients (4.9%) treated with catheter ablation. Mean quality of life scores improved significantly in patients treated by catheter ablation compared with ADT at 3 months; improvement was maintained during the course of the study. CONCLUSION: Among patients with paroxysmal AF who had not responded to at least 1 antiarrhythmic drug, the use of catheter ablation compared with ADT resulted in a longer time to treatment failure during the 9-month follow-up period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00116428.
机译:背景:抗心律失常药物通常用于预防复发性心房颤动(AF),尽管疗效不一致且不良反应频繁。已经提出了导管消融作为阵发性AF的替代治疗。目的:确定导管消融术与抗心律失常药物治疗(ADT)相比,治疗症状性阵发性AF的疗效。设计,地点和参与者:贝叶斯设计的前瞻性,多中心,随机(2:1),无盲,贝叶斯设计的研究,对167例对至少1种抗心律不齐药物没有反应且至少发生3次AF发作的患者进行了研究在随机分配前的6个月内。研究入组于2004年10月25日至2007年10月11日之间,最后一次随访于2009年1月19日进行。干预:导管消融术(n = 106)或ADT(n = 61),并评估了可比性9个月的随访期。主要观察指标:协议规定的治疗失败时间。还报告了在导管消融或ADT的30天内经历了与治疗相关的主要不良事件的患者比例。结果:在9个月的有效性评估期结束时,导管消融组中66%的患者保持了协议定义的治疗失败,而ADT治疗的患者为16%。导管消融对ADT的危险比为0.30(95%置信区间为0.19-0.47; P <.001)。 30天与治疗相关的主要不良事件发生在57例接受ADT的患者中,有5例(8.8%)和103例接受导管消融的患者中有5例(4.9%)。 3个月时,与ADT相比,经导管消融治疗的患者的平均生活质量得分显着提高;在研究过程中保持了改善。结论:在阵发性房颤患者中,至少对一种抗心律不齐药物无反应的患者,与ADT相比,导管消融术在9个月的随访期内治疗失败的时间更长。试验注册:clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT00116428。

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