目的:应用心脏起搏器监测,比较决奈达隆与胺碘酮口服治疗阵发性心房颤动(后简称房颤)的临床疗效。方法:纳入安装心脏起搏器的阵发性房颤患者140例,分为决奈达隆组(观察组,70例)和胺碘酮组(对照组,70例)。比较两组药物治疗后起搏器记录...目的:应用心脏起搏器监测,比较决奈达隆与胺碘酮口服治疗阵发性心房颤动(后简称房颤)的临床疗效。方法:纳入安装心脏起搏器的阵发性房颤患者140例,分为决奈达隆组(观察组,70例)和胺碘酮组(对照组,70例)。比较两组药物治疗后起搏器记录的房颤事件频率、持续时间及相关并发症。结果:治疗前两组基线数据无显著差异。治疗3个月和1年后,房颤发生次数显著下降(P Objective: To utilize cardiac pacemaker monitoring to compare the clinical efficacy of oral dronedarone and amiodarone in the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: A total of 140 patients with paroxysmal AF who had cardiac pacemakers implanted were enrolled. The patients were divided into a dronedarone group (observation group, 70 cases) and an amiodarone group (control group, 70 cases). The frequency and duration of AF events recorded by pacemakers, as well as related complications, were compared between the two groups after treatment. Results: Baseline data showed no significant difference between the two groups before treatment. After 3 months and 1 year of treatment, the frequency of AF episodes significantly decreased (P < 0.05), with no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The incidence of complications was lower in the observation group, but the time to restore sinus rhythm after an AF episode was significantly longer compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: In the maintenance therapy for AF, dronedarone and amiodarone exhibit comparable efficacy. Dronedarone is associated with fewer adverse effects and better patient compliance. However, amiodarone demonstrates superior performance in restoring sinus rhythm.展开更多
文摘目的:应用心脏起搏器监测,比较决奈达隆与胺碘酮口服治疗阵发性心房颤动(后简称房颤)的临床疗效。方法:纳入安装心脏起搏器的阵发性房颤患者140例,分为决奈达隆组(观察组,70例)和胺碘酮组(对照组,70例)。比较两组药物治疗后起搏器记录的房颤事件频率、持续时间及相关并发症。结果:治疗前两组基线数据无显著差异。治疗3个月和1年后,房颤发生次数显著下降(P Objective: To utilize cardiac pacemaker monitoring to compare the clinical efficacy of oral dronedarone and amiodarone in the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: A total of 140 patients with paroxysmal AF who had cardiac pacemakers implanted were enrolled. The patients were divided into a dronedarone group (observation group, 70 cases) and an amiodarone group (control group, 70 cases). The frequency and duration of AF events recorded by pacemakers, as well as related complications, were compared between the two groups after treatment. Results: Baseline data showed no significant difference between the two groups before treatment. After 3 months and 1 year of treatment, the frequency of AF episodes significantly decreased (P < 0.05), with no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The incidence of complications was lower in the observation group, but the time to restore sinus rhythm after an AF episode was significantly longer compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: In the maintenance therapy for AF, dronedarone and amiodarone exhibit comparable efficacy. Dronedarone is associated with fewer adverse effects and better patient compliance. However, amiodarone demonstrates superior performance in restoring sinus rhythm.
