Antiarrhythmische Pharmakotherapie

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 826-829
Author(s):  
A. Goette ◽  
P. Kirchhof ◽  
A. Treszl ◽  
K. Wegscheider ◽  
T. Meinertz

ZusammenfassungEs werden die Ergebnisse von Studien sowie die Protokolle laufender „Megastudien“ mit Bezug zum Vorhofflimmer-Netzwerk dargestellt. Bei den abgeschlossenen Studien handelt es sich um die Flecainide Short-Long trial (Flec-SL) und die Angiotensin-II-Rezeptorblocker in Paroxysmal Atrial FibrillationStudie (ANTIPAF). Bei den „Megastudien“ um Studien mit den Kürzeln EAST (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial), CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) und CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation versus Standard conventional Treatment in patients with LEft ventricular dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation). Die Ergebnisse der Studien: Eine präventive Kurzzeittherapie nach Kardio-version ist sinnvoller als der Verzicht auf jegliche Antiarrhythmika-Nachbehandlung. Noch effektiver scheint eine antiarrhythmische Langzeit-Nachbehandlung über sechs Monate zu sein. In der ANTIPAF-Studie zeigte sich, dass bei Patienten mit paroxysmalem Vorhofflimmern (VHF) ohne strukturelle Herzkrankheit der Angiotensinrezeptorblocker Olmesartan nicht in der Lage ist, die Häufigkeit der Anfälle zu reduzieren. Wichtigstes therapeutisches Ziel ist die Verhinderung der Progression von VHF. In der EAST-Studie wird geprüft, ob eine frühzeitig eingeleitete, „aggressive“ Therapie zur Kontrolle des Herzrhythmus eher in der Lage ist, Morbidität und Mortalität von VHF zu senken als die Standardtherapie.

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. S91-S92
Author(s):  
Arun Kanmanthareddy ◽  
Avanija R. Buddam ◽  
Madhu Reddy ◽  
Sandeep Koripalli ◽  
Ajay Vallakati ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Tina S. Tischer ◽  
Daniel Nitschke ◽  
Isabelle Krause ◽  
Günther Kundt ◽  
Alper Öner ◽  
...  

Purpose. In atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, the effect of catheter ablation or drug therapy on cognition is currently not well investigated. Therefore, we prospectively evaluated AF patients who were either treated 'with drug therapy or underwent catheter ablation for the prevalence and progression of cognitive impairment (CI). Methods. Randomized participants of the CABANA trial (catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy for atrial fibrillation) and the CASTLE-AF (catheter ablation versus standard conventional treatment in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and atrial fibrillation) study were assessed twice within 6 months by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in our institution. Results. Forty-five patients from both trials were investigated, and twenty-eight patients received catheter ablation, whereas seventeen patients received drug therapy for rhythm or rate control. The mean age of the twenty-one CABANA trial patients (AF group) was 68.8 ± 7.0 years and of the twenty-four CASTLE-AF study patients (AF/HF group) was 66.8 ± 8.1 years, respectively. Mean time from ablation/randomization to the first interview was 16.8 ± 11 months in the AF group and 28.3 ± 18.4 months in the AF/HF group, respectively. All patients investigated were classified as cognitively impaired with mean cutoff scores <24 by MoCA. Overall, we could not detect significant differences in medically treated versus catheter ablation patients within both groups in mean MMSE or MoCA scores between the first and the second interview (p>0.09). Moreover, patients who received catheter ablation did not show statistically significant differences in the prevalence or progression of cognitive impairment compared to patients who were treated medically, neither within the two groups nor between AF and AF/HF patients (p>0.05). Conclusions. Prevalence of cognitive impairment in AF patients with comorbidities is substantial. However, in this preliminary prospective study, no apparent impact of AF pretreatment on the prevalence and course of cognitive impairment could be observed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Tarcísio Medeiros de Vasconcelos

A fibrilação atrial se consolidou nas últimas décadas como um grave problema de saúde pública, considerando o seu notório aumento de prevalência com o envelhecimento aliado ao aumento da sobrevida da população. Dados do Framingham Heart Study indicam que, mesmo em um cenário ótimo de ausência dos clássicos fatores de risco para sua ocorrência, como tabagismo, consumo abusivo de álcool, obesidade, hipertensão, diabetes e cardiopatia, cerca de 10% dos indivíduos com idade igual ou superior a 80 anos e algo em torno de 25% daqueles com idade igual ou superior a 90 anos terão fibrilação atrial1. Essas taxas aumentam substancialmente quando se agregam a fatores de risco isolados ou combinados. A despeito da sua já bem conhecida relação com a ocorrência do acidente vascular encefálico trombo-embólico2, a presença de fibrilação atrial tem sido identificada como um fator de risco de mortalidade independente em grandes estudos populacionais3.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document