The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon · 2012
Comparative efficacy and usefulness of acebutolol and diltiazem for the prevention of atrial fibrillation during perioperative time in patients undergoing pulmonary resection.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ciszewski Pawel, Tyczka Joanna, Nadolski Jacek, Roszak Magdalena, Dyszkiewicz Wojciech
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Postthoracic surgery atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequently occurring arrhythmia. Strategies for preventing AF have been amply evaluated, but currently there are no clearly defined guidelines for treatment of AF after thoracic surgery.
METHODS: The study was prospective and randomized controlled trial. Acebutolol and diltiazem versus placebo were compared, among 117 patients postpneumonectomy or lobectomy at the Thoracosurgery Clinic, Poznan University of Medical Sciences in Poland. Patients who were enrolled in the study were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: those who received acebutolol (Group 1) or diltiazem (Group 2) and compared with patients without antiarrhythmic drugs (Group 0). Each group consisted of 39 patients. The patients were continuously monitored postoperatively with 24 ECG (Holter monitor) in the intensive care unit.
RESULTS: In patients receiving acebutolol AF occurred in 5% compared with 23% of patients receiving diltiazem and 20% of patients receiving placebo (difference not statistically significant).
CONCLUSIONS: Acebutolol and diltiazem appear to have been non-effective for the treatment or prevention of AF. Side effects were mild. In comparison to diltiazem, however, acebutolol had a beneficial effect on the circulatory system. Patients who had received acebutolol proved to have had fewer tachycardia episodes and supraventricular ectopy during the postoperative period. It seems that acebutolol can be useful, especially in patients with sympathetic activity dominance.
METHODS: The study was prospective and randomized controlled trial. Acebutolol and diltiazem versus placebo were compared, among 117 patients postpneumonectomy or lobectomy at the Thoracosurgery Clinic, Poznan University of Medical Sciences in Poland. Patients who were enrolled in the study were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: those who received acebutolol (Group 1) or diltiazem (Group 2) and compared with patients without antiarrhythmic drugs (Group 0). Each group consisted of 39 patients. The patients were continuously monitored postoperatively with 24 ECG (Holter monitor) in the intensive care unit.
RESULTS: In patients receiving acebutolol AF occurred in 5% compared with 23% of patients receiving diltiazem and 20% of patients receiving placebo (difference not statistically significant).
CONCLUSIONS: Acebutolol and diltiazem appear to have been non-effective for the treatment or prevention of AF. Side effects were mild. In comparison to diltiazem, however, acebutolol had a beneficial effect on the circulatory system. Patients who had received acebutolol proved to have had fewer tachycardia episodes and supraventricular ectopy during the postoperative period. It seems that acebutolol can be useful, especially in patients with sympathetic activity dominance.