RESUMEN
Atrial fibrillation recurs in many patients treated with antiarrhythmic therapy to maintain sinus rhythm. From March 1985 to August 1991, 214 patients with recurrent symptomatic chronic or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation for which conventional antiarrhythmic agents had failed were treated with propafenone or sotalol. Baseline demographic data including the presence of pacing therapy were collected. Life-table estimates of the duration of freedom from atrial fibrillation were constructed on the basis of pacemaker status. Of 214 patients, 26 (12.1%) had pacing therapy. Patients with dual-chamber pacing were more likely to remain in sinus rhythm at 6 months (80%) than were patients with ventricular pacing (40%) or patients without pacing therapy (55%) (p = 0.002). A Cox univariate regression analysis demonstrated that dual-chamber pacing in contrast to ventricular pacing or no pacing was associated with a lower risk of recurrent atrial fibrillation. Clinical parameters such as age, gender, left atrial size, fibrillation pattern, drug assignment, ejection fraction, and underlying cardiac disease did not alter the risk of recurrent atrial fibrillation. Dual-chamber pacing was associated with a decreased likelihood of recurrent atrial fibrillation even after adjustment for other clinical covariates in a multivariate model (p = 0.04). In patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation treated with propafenone or sotalol, dual-chamber pacing improved maintenance of sinus rhythm.
Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial/prevención & control , Estimulación Cardíaca Artificial , Fibrilación Atrial/tratamiento farmacológico , Estimulación Cardíaca Artificial/métodos , Enfermedad Crónica , Femenino , Atrios Cardíacos , Cardiopatías/complicaciones , Frecuencia Cardíaca , Ventrículos Cardíacos , Humanos , Tablas de Vida , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Propafenona/uso terapéutico , Estudios Prospectivos , Recurrencia , Análisis de Regresión , Factores de Riesgo , Sotalol/uso terapéutico , Volumen Sistólico , Insuficiencia del TratamientoRESUMEN
Because conventional antiarrhythmic therapy is often ineffective in maintaining sinus rhythm or is associated with adverse side effects in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), there is a clinical need to test newer agents. One hundred patients with AF who had unsuccessful therapy with 1.9 +/- 1.0 type IA antiarrhythmic agents were randomized to receive either propafenone (n = 50) or sotalol (n = 50). Patients were stratified into 4 groups based on AF pattern (chronic vs paroxysmal) and left atrial size (large [> or = 4.5 cm] vs small [< 4.5]). The proportion of patients remaining in sinus rhythm on each agent was calculated for each group by the Kaplan-Meier method. For patients randomized to propafenone, 46 +/- 8%, 41 +/- 8% and 30 +/- 8% remained in sinus rhythm at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, after cardioversion. A similar proportion of patients treated with sotalol remained in sinus rhythm at follow-up (49 +/- 7%, 46 +/- 8% and 37 +/- 8% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively; p = NS). The proportion of patients remaining in sinus rhythm on propafenone and sotalol was not dependent on arrhythmia pattern or left atrial dimension. Except for constipation that occurred more frequently in patients treated with propafenone, adverse side effects were equally distributed between the 2 therapies. Two patients receiving sotalol died during follow-up. Propafenone and sotalol, 2 new antiarrhythmic agents, were found to be equally effective in maintaining sinus rhythm in 100 patients with recurrent AF. Response rates were not affected by arrhythmia pattern, left atrial size or unsuccessful prior drug therapy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial/tratamiento farmacológico , Propafenona/uso terapéutico , Sotalol/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Electrocardiografía Ambulatoria , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Propafenona/efectos adversos , Recurrencia , Sotalol/efectos adversosRESUMEN
Most states have specific laws governing whether patients with seizure disorders can drive. To learn whether similar laws exist for patients with lethal ventricular arrhythmias, we surveyed the Departments of Motor Vehicles in all 50 states. In addition, either an arrhythmia specialist (n = 25) or a general cardiologist (n = 25) was chosen randomly from each state and interviewed to study physician awareness of such laws and physician attitudes toward driving by patients with arrhythmias. Forty-two states (84%) have laws restricting driving by patients who have seizures; only 8 states (16%) have specific laws for patients with arrhythmias. No state makes a distinction between driving by patients with arrhythmias who are managed with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) compared with patients who are managed medically. Seventy-four percent of physicians did not know their own state's laws about driving by patients who have ventricular arrhythmias. Cardiologists were more likely to advise no driving restriction for medically treated patients than for ICD-treated patients. Cardiologists were also more likely to advise permanent restriction for patients with ICDs than for patients treated medically. We conclude that greater legal and medical consensus is needed to guide physicians in advising patients with lethal ventricular arrhythmias about driving restrictions.
Asunto(s)
Arritmias Cardíacas , Conducción de Automóvil/legislación & jurisprudencia , Cardiología , Ventrículos Cardíacos , Humanos , Rol del Médico , Gobierno Estatal , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Despite large gains in the medical and surgical treatment of angina pectoris in the past two decades, many patients are refractory to conventional medical therapy and are unsuitable for a first or, more commonly, repeat coronary revascularization procedure. We evaluated the efficacy of perhexiline maleate, a drug with an antianginal mechanism of action in humans that is as yet unknown, by using a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design in 17 patients with refractory angina who continued to receive maximal antianginal therapy, typically including nitrates, a beta-blocker, and a calcium channel antagonist. In view of perhexiline's potential for hepatic and neurological toxicity, plasma drug levels were monitored and maintained in the 150-600 ng/ml range. Sixty-three percent of patients were judged perhexiline responders by objective exercise testing criteria, as compared with 18% of patients on placebo (p less than 0.05). By blinded review of subjective measures of anginal frequency and severity, 65% of patients noted an improvement while on perhexiline, whereas no patient identified the placebo phase with improvement. Side effects observed in 29% of patients were minor and related to transient elevations of blood levels of more than 600 ng/ml; no patient suffered hemodynamic or cardiac conduction abnormalities attributable to perhexiline. With attention to the pharmacokinetics of perhexiline's elimination in individual patients, this novel antianginal agent seems to be safe and effective and deserves further evaluation in patients already receiving maximal antianginal therapy who are not candidates for revascularization procedures.