冷凍消融一線治療心房顫動的預後優於藥物治療
作者:
小柯機器人發布時間:2020/11/19 11:08:11
加拿大英屬哥倫比亞大學Jason G. Andrade團隊比較了冷凍消融或藥物治療心房顫動的預後。2020年11月16日,該研究發表在《新英格蘭醫學雜誌》上。
指南建議在房顫患者考慮進行導管消融之前,先嘗試一種或多種抗心律不齊藥物。但一線消融可能更有效地維持竇性心律。
研究組招募了303例有症狀、陣發性、未經治療的房顫患者,將其隨機分配,分別接受低溫球囊消融術或抗心律失常藥物治療以控制初始心律。所有患者均接受了植入式心臟監測設備以監測房性心律失常,隨訪期為12個月。主要終點為導管消融或開始使用抗心律失常藥物後91-365天首次有記錄的任何房性心動過速(心房顫動、心房撲動或房性心動過速)的復發。次要終點包括無症狀性心律不齊、房顫負擔和生活質量。
在1年時,消融組154例患者中有66例(42.9%)發生了房性快速性心律失常復發,抗心律不齊藥物組149例患者中有101例(67.8%),風險比為0.48,組間差異顯著。消融組患者中有症狀的房性快速性心律失常發生率為11.0%,抗心律不齊藥物組患者中為26.2%,風險比為0.39。消融組患者心房顫動的中位持續時間百分比為0%,抗心律不齊藥物組為0.13%。消融組中有5例患者(3.2%)發生了嚴重不良事件,抗心律不齊藥物組中有6例患者(4.0%)。
研究結果表明,對於症狀性陣發性心房顫動的初治患者,通過持續性心律監測,採用導管低溫球囊消融術治療後的房顫復發率顯著低於抗心律不齊藥物治療。
附:英文原文
Title: Cryoablation or Drug Therapy for Initial Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation | NEJM
Author: Jason G. Andrade, M.D.,, George A. Wells, Ph.D.,, Marc W. Deyell, M.D.,, Matthew Bennett, M.D.,, Vidal Essebag, M.D., Ph.D.,, Jean Champagne, M.D.,, Jean-Francois Roux, M.D.,, Derek Yung, M.D.,, Allan Skanes, M.D.,, Yaariv Khaykin, M.D.,, Carlos Morillo, M.D.,, Umjeet Jolly, M.D.,, Paul Novak, M.D.,, Evan Lockwood, M.D.,, Guy Amit, M.D.,, Paul Angaran, M.D.,, John Sapp, M.D.,, Stephan Wardell, M.D.,, Sandra Lauck, Ph.D.,, Laurent Macle, M.D.,, and Atul Verma, M.D.
Issue&Volume: 2020-11-16
Abstract:
Background
Guidelines recommend a trial of one or more antiarrhythmic drugs before catheter ablation is considered in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, first-line ablation may be more effective in maintaining sinus rhythm.
Methods
We randomly assigned 303 patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal, untreated atrial fibrillation to undergo catheter ablation with a cryothermy balloon or to receive antiarrhythmic drug therapy for initial rhythm control. All the patients received an implantable cardiac monitoring device to detect atrial tachyarrhythmia. The follow-up period was 12 months. The primary end point was the first documented recurrence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia) between 91 and 365 days after catheter ablation or the initiation of an antiarrhythmic drug. The secondary end points included freedom from symptomatic arrhythmia, the atrial fibrillation burden, and quality of life.
Results
At 1 year, a recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia had occurred in 66 of 154 patients (42.9%) assigned to undergo ablation and in 101 of 149 patients (67.8%) assigned to receive antiarrhythmic drugs (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.66; P<0.001). Symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia had recurred in 11.0% of the patients who underwent ablation and in 26.2% of those who received antiarrhythmic drugs (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.68). The median percentage of time in atrial fibrillation was 0% (interquartile range, 0 to 0.08) with ablation and 0.13% (interquartile range, 0 to 1.60) with antiarrhythmic drugs. Serious adverse events occurred in 5 patients (3.2%) who underwent ablation and in 6 patients (4.0%) who received antiarrhythmic drugs.
Conclusions
Among patients receiving initial treatment for symptomatic, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, there was a significantly lower rate of atrial fibrillation recurrence with catheter cryoballoon ablation than with antiarrhythmic drug therapy, as assessed by continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring.
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2029980
Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2029980