我们的网站为什么显示成这样？

可能因为您的浏览器不支持样式，您可以更新您的浏览器到最新版本，以获取对此功能的支持，访问下面的网站，获取关于浏览器的信息：

|本期目录/Table of Contents|

胺碘酮与普罗帕酮维持窦性心律疗效与安全性的Meta分析

《心脏杂志》[ISSN:1009-7236/CN:61-1268/R]

期数:
2010年第4期
页码:
603-606
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2010-06-10

文章信息/Info

Title:
Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of amiodarone vs. propafenone for maintenance of atrial fibrillation
作者:
张静梅; 金妙珍
南京大学医学院附属南京鼓楼医院心内科，江苏 南京 210008
Author(s):
ZHANG Jing-mei;  JIN Miao-zhen
Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School, Nanjing University, Nanking 210008, Jiangsu, China
关键词:
心房颤动; 胺碘酮; 普罗帕酮; 心律; 窦性; 维持; Meta分析
Keywords:
atrial fibrillation;  amiodarone;  propafenone;  maintenance;  meta-analysis
分类号:
R541.71
DOI:
-
文献标识码:
A
摘要:
目的：比较胺碘酮与普罗帕酮在维持窦性心律治疗中的疗效与安全性。方法： 计算机检索Cochrane图书馆（2008年第4期）、PubMed、EMBAS（荷兰医学文摘）和中国生物医学文献数据库，收集2000年1月~2008年11月公开发表的有关文献，并用RevMan 5.0统计软件进行统计分析。结果： ①在胺碘酮与普罗帕酮维持窦性心律疗效的研究中，共纳入4项研究，累计胺碘酮治疗组221例，普罗帕酮治疗组204例。胺碘酮与普罗帕酮维持窦性心律疗效的合并OR值为0.65，95%可信区间为0.43-0.97，P<0.05。②在胺碘酮与普罗帕酮维持窦性心律安全性的研究中，共纳入3项研究，累计胺碘酮治疗组168例，普罗帕酮治疗组158例。胺碘酮与普罗帕酮维持窦性心律安全性的合并OR值为3.79，95%可信区间为1.83-7.88，P<0.05。结论： 在维持窦性心律疗效方面，胺碘酮优于普罗帕酮；但用药安全性不如普罗帕酮。
Abstract:
AIM: To provide evidence for the clinic administration of amiodarone and propafenone by investigating the efficacy and safety of amiodarone vs. propafenone for maintenance of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2008), PubMed, EMBASE and Chinese Biomedical Database were searched. The studies comparing the efficacy and safety of amiodarone vs. propafenone for the maintenance of atrial fibrillation published between January 2000 and November 2008 were included. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan v. 5.0 software. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified in the efficacy of amiodarone vs. propafenone for the maintenance of atrial fibrillation. There were 221 and 204 cases, respectively, of amiodarone or propafenone and the pooled odds ratio (OR) values and 95% CI were, respectively, 0.65 (0.43-0.97, P<0.05). Three RCTs were identified in safety of amiodarone vs. propafenone for maintenance of atrial fibrillation. The cases of amiodarone and propafenone were 168 and 158, respectively, and the pooled OR values and 95% CI were, respectively, 3.79 (1.83-7.88, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Amiodarone is superior to propafenone in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation but propafenone is a safer option.

参考文献/References

［1］黄从新，马长生，杨延宗，等. 心房颤动：目前的认识和治疗建议（二）［J］. 中华心律失常学杂志， 2006,10（3）：167-197.

［2］李幼平. 循证医学［M］. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2003:62.

［3］Kochiadakis GE, Marketou ME,Igoumenidis NE, et al. Amiodarone, sotalol, or propafenone in atrial fibrillation: which is preferred to maintain normal sinus rhythm?［J］. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2000, 23(11 Pt 2):1883-1887.

［4］Kochiadakis GE, Igoumenidis NE, Hamilos MI, et al. Long-term maintenance of normal sinus rhythm in patients with current symptomatic atrial fibrillation: amiodarone vs propafenone, both in low doses［J］. Chest, 2004, 125(2):377-383.

［5］张为民,邹良建,李莉, 等. 胺碘酮与普罗帕酮对换瓣后慢性房颤电复律后维持窦性心律效果比较［J］. 实用心电学杂志, 2000, 9（4）：311.

［6］ 骆雷鸣,陈敏芝,史军,等. 药物预防阵发性房颤复发的疗效与安全性评价［J］. 药物不良反应杂志, 2004, (3)：151-154.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期：2010-01-05.作者简介：张静梅，主治医师，硕士Email：zhangjm01@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2010-05-20