...
首页> 外文期刊>Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology >Catheter Ablation and Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy as First- or Second-Line Therapy in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
【24h】

Catheter Ablation and Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy as First- or Second-Line Therapy in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机译:导管消融和抗心律失常药物治疗作为房颤管理中的一线或二线治疗:系统评价和荟萃分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background-: The optimal management of atrial fibrillation remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to examine the safety and the efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) when compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy both as first- and second-line therapy for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results-: Several databases were searched from inception to March 2014, which yielded 11 studies with 1481 patients with atrial fibrillation. The outcomes measured were recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia and the incidence of adverse events. A subgroup analysis was done to evaluate the efficacy of CA as first- or second-line therapy. There was recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia in 222 of 785 (28%) patients who underwent CA and in 451 of 696 (65%) patients who were on antiarrhythmic drug therapy (relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.52; P=0.00001). Subgroup analysis revealed a beneficial effect of CA both as a first-line (relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.91; P=0.02) and as a second-line (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.48; P<0.00001) therapeutic modality. There was a significantly higher incidence of major adverse events in the CA group when compared with those in the antiarrhythmic drug therapy group (relative risk, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.77; P=0.02, I2=0%). Conclusions-: CA seems to be superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in drug naive, resistant, and intolerant patients with atrial fibrillation. However, it should be performed in carefully selected patients after weighing the risks and benefits of the procedure.
机译:背景-:房颤的最佳治疗仍不清楚。我们进行了一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析,以检查与抗心律失常药物治疗(作为维持心房颤动的窦性心律的一线和二线治疗)相比,导管消融(CA)的安全性和有效性。方法和结果:从开始到2014年3月,检索了多个数据库,共进行了11项针对1481例房颤患者的研究。测得的结局是房性心律失常的复发和不良事件的发生率。进行了亚组分析以评估CA作为一线或二线治疗的疗效。进行CA的785例患者中有222例(28%)发生心律失常复发,接受抗心律失常药物治疗的696例中696例(65%)患者中有451例复发(相对危险度为0.40; 95%可信区间为0.31-0.52; P = 0.00001)。亚组分析显示,CA对一线患者(相对风险,0.52; 95%置信区间,0.30-0.91; P = 0.02)和第二线患者(相对风险,0.37; 95%置信区间, 0.29-0.48; P <0.00001)的治疗方式。与抗心律失常药物治疗组相比,CA组的主要不良事件发生率显着更高(相对风险2.04; 95%置信区间1.10-3.77; P = 0.02,I2 = 0%)。结论:在单纯性,耐药性和不耐受性房颤患者中,CA似乎优于抗心律失常药物治疗。但是,应在权衡该过程的风险和益处后,对经过精心选择的患者进行此检查。

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