（课件）南京医科大学第一附属医院.pptVIP

患者症状改善不明显，进一步治疗措施？ A：进一步控制心室率 B：转复为窦性心律 C：导管消融治疗 患者症状明显改善，继续治疗措施？ A：继续药物治疗 B：电转复 C：导管消融治疗 住院2周后 入院2周后，行持续性心房颤动射频消融术 术中房颤转为右房房速，消融中房速终止，但出现窦性静止。保留冠状窦电极作为临时起搏电极应用，起搏频率设置为70bpm * EUREDIS 和 ADONIS 两组资料结果 安慰剂组房颤发生率跟高 * In patients with severe heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, treatment with dronedarone was associated with increased early mortality related to the worsening of heart failure. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NC) * Dronedarone reduced the incidence of hospitalization due to cardiovascular events or death in patients with atrial fibrillation. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NC) * Dronedarone versus Amiodarone in Patients with AF. Introduction: We compared the efficacy and safety of amiodarone and dronedarone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: Five hundred and four amiodarone-na¨?ve patients were randomized to receive dronedarone 400 mg bid (n = 249) or amiodarone 600 mg qd for 28 days then 200 mg qd (n = 255) for at least 6 months. Primary composite endpoint was recurrence of AF (including unsuccessful electrical cardioversion, no spontaneous conversion and no electrical cardioversion) or premature study discontinuation. Main safety endpoint (MSE) was occurrence of thyroid-, hepatic-, pulmonary-, neurologic-, skin-, eye-, or gastrointestinal-specific events, or premature study drug discontinuation following an adverse event. Results: Median treatment duration was 7 months. The primary composite endpoint was 75.1 and 58.8% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively, at 12 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28–1.98; P 0.0001), mainly driven by AF recurrence with dronedarone compared with amiodarone (63.5 vs 42.0%). AF recurrence after successful cardioversion was 36.5 and 24.3% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively. Premature drug discontinuation tended to be less frequent with dronedarone (10.4 vs 13.3%). MSE was 39.3 and 44.5% with dronedarone and amiodaro