首页> 外文期刊>Archives of Internal Medicine >Catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review.
【24h】

Catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review.

机译:导管消融和抗心律失常的药物治疗心房纤颤:系统回顾。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Circumferential pulmonary vein ablation (CPVA) has become common therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF), but results of large randomized controlled trials comparing this procedure with antiarrhythmic drug therapy (ADT) have not been published to date. We conducted a systematic literature review to assess whether CPVA is superior to ADT for the management of AF. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant randomized controlled trials. Data were abstracted to construct a 2 x 2 table for each trial. Recurrence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) was considered the primary end point of the trials. The estimate and confidence interval for the pooled risk ratio of AT recurrence-free survival in the CPVA group vs the ADT group were obtained using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Four trials qualified for the meta-analysis. In total, 162 of 214 patients (75.7%) in the CPVA group had AT recurrence-free survival vs 41 of 218 patients (18.8%)in the ADT group. The random-effects pooled risk ratio for AT recurrence-free survival was 3.73 (95% confidence interval, 2.47-5.63). In addition, fewer adverse events were reported in the CPVA group compared with that in the ADT group. CONCLUSIONS: We observed statistically significantly better AT recurrence-free survival with CPVA than with ADT. These results highlight the need for larger trials to determine the appropriate role for CPVA in the management of AF. Ongoing clinical trials may provide further guidance on these treatment options for AF.
机译:背景:圆周肺静脉消融(CPVA)已成为常见的治疗心房颤动(房颤),但大的结果随机对照试验过程和抗心律失常的药物治疗(ADT)迄今为止还没有发表。系统的文献回顾来评估CPVA优于ADT为房颤的管理。方法:我们搜索PubMed、EMBASE,科克伦中心注册的对照试验对相关的随机对照试验。被抽象构造一个2 x 2桌每一个审判。快速性心律失常(在)被认为是主要的试验的终点。置信区间的集中风险的比率在CPVA recurrence-free生存组vsADT组得到使用随机模型。合格的荟萃分析。CPVA组的214名患者(75.7%)在recurrence-free生存与41岁的218名患者ADT组(18.8%)。集中在recurrence-free生存风险比率为3.73(95%置信区间,2.47 - -5.63)。此外,更少的不良事件报告了ADT CPVA组相比组。在recurrence-free更好的生存ADT CPVA比。需要更大的试验来确定CPVA适当角色的管理房颤可能会提供进一步的临床试验正在进行指导这些治疗房颤的方法。

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