胺碘酮与普罗帕酮维持窦性心律疗效与安全性的Meta分析  

Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of amiodarone vs. propafenone for maintenance of atrial fibrillation

作　　者：张静梅[1] 金妙珍[1] 

机构地区：[1]南京大学医学院附属南京鼓楼医院心内科,江苏南京210008

出　　处：《心脏杂志》2010年第4期603-606,共4页Chinese Heart Journal

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。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.

关 键 词：心房颤动 胺碘酮 普罗帕酮 心律 窦性 维持 META分析 

分 类 号：R541.71[医药卫生—心血管疾病]