胺碘酮和β-受体阻滞剂联合疗法与单用β-受体阻滞剂预防 ICD 休克的对比:荟萃分析。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1111/pace.15027
Vahid Yazdi, Abdelmoniem Moustafa, Mohamad Nawras, Bayan Yazdi, Paul Chacko
{"title":"胺碘酮和β-受体阻滞剂联合疗法与单用β-受体阻滞剂预防 ICD 休克的对比:荟萃分析。","authors":"Vahid Yazdi, Abdelmoniem Moustafa, Mohamad Nawras, Bayan Yazdi, Paul Chacko","doi":"10.1111/pace.15027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks are a lifesaving therapy, they can negatively affect the patient's quality of life. Amiodarone is commonly combined with β-blockers (BB) in ICD recipients. However, this combination therapy's efficacy in preventing shocks compared to standard BB monotherapy is not well studied. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine if combined amiodarone and BB therapy improves prevention of ICD shock delivery compared to BB monotherapy. We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, for studies that assess the impact of amiodarone and BB versus BB monotherapy in patients with an ICD. The primary outcome was a total number of ICD shocks delivered by the end of the study period. Four studies: three retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial (RCT), with a total of 5818 patients with ICDs, were included in the analysis. Follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 5 years. The combined amiodarone and BB group was not associated with a significantly lower number of ICD shocks compared to the BB monotherapy group (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.31; P = .32). A combination therapy of amiodarone and BB was not associated with any further reduction in ICD shocks, hospitalizations, or mortality. Additional RCTs are recommended to further validate our findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":54653,"journal":{"name":"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Amiodarone and β-blocker combination therapy versus β-blocker monotherapy for ICD shock prevention: A meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Vahid Yazdi, Abdelmoniem Moustafa, Mohamad Nawras, Bayan Yazdi, Paul Chacko\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pace.15027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks are a lifesaving therapy, they can negatively affect the patient's quality of life. Amiodarone is commonly combined with β-blockers (BB) in ICD recipients. However, this combination therapy's efficacy in preventing shocks compared to standard BB monotherapy is not well studied. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine if combined amiodarone and BB therapy improves prevention of ICD shock delivery compared to BB monotherapy. We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, for studies that assess the impact of amiodarone and BB versus BB monotherapy in patients with an ICD. The primary outcome was a total number of ICD shocks delivered by the end of the study period. Four studies: three retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial (RCT), with a total of 5818 patients with ICDs, were included in the analysis. Follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 5 years. The combined amiodarone and BB group was not associated with a significantly lower number of ICD shocks compared to the BB monotherapy group (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.31; P = .32). A combination therapy of amiodarone and BB was not associated with any further reduction in ICD shocks, hospitalizations, or mortality. Additional RCTs are recommended to further validate our findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.15027\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.15027","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)电击是一种挽救生命的疗法,但它会对患者的生活质量产生负面影响。胺碘酮通常与 β 受体阻滞剂 (BB) 联合用于 ICD 患者。然而,与标准的 BB 单药治疗相比,这种联合疗法在预防电击方面的疗效尚未得到充分研究。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在确定胺碘酮和 BB 联合疗法与 BB 单药疗法相比是否能更好地预防 ICD 发生电击。我们使用 PubMed、Cochrane 和 Web of Science 数据库进行了全面的文献检索,以评估胺碘酮和 BB 与 BB 单药治疗对 ICD 患者的影响。研究的主要结果是研究结束时 ICD 电击的总次数。四项研究:三项回顾性研究和一项随机对照试验 (RCT),共计 5818 名 ICD 患者被纳入分析。随访时间从 1 年到 5 年不等。与 BB 单药治疗组相比,胺碘酮和 BB 联合治疗组的 ICD 电击次数并没有明显降低(OR,0.76;95% CI,0.44-1.31;P = .32)。胺碘酮和 BB 联合疗法与进一步减少 ICD 震荡、住院或死亡率无关。建议进行更多的 RCT 研究以进一步验证我们的发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Amiodarone and β-blocker combination therapy versus β-blocker monotherapy for ICD shock prevention: A meta-analysis.

While implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks are a lifesaving therapy, they can negatively affect the patient's quality of life. Amiodarone is commonly combined with β-blockers (BB) in ICD recipients. However, this combination therapy's efficacy in preventing shocks compared to standard BB monotherapy is not well studied. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine if combined amiodarone and BB therapy improves prevention of ICD shock delivery compared to BB monotherapy. We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, for studies that assess the impact of amiodarone and BB versus BB monotherapy in patients with an ICD. The primary outcome was a total number of ICD shocks delivered by the end of the study period. Four studies: three retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial (RCT), with a total of 5818 patients with ICDs, were included in the analysis. Follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 5 years. The combined amiodarone and BB group was not associated with a significantly lower number of ICD shocks compared to the BB monotherapy group (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.31; P = .32). A combination therapy of amiodarone and BB was not associated with any further reduction in ICD shocks, hospitalizations, or mortality. Additional RCTs are recommended to further validate our findings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
209
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology (PACE) is the foremost peer-reviewed journal in the field of pacing and implantable cardioversion defibrillation, publishing over 50% of all English language articles in its field, featuring original, review, and didactic papers, and case reports related to daily practice. Articles also include editorials, book reviews, Musings on humane topics relevant to medical practice, electrophysiology (EP) rounds, device rounds, and information concerning the quality of devices used in the practice of the specialty.
期刊最新文献
Coronary Spasm Due to Pulsed Field Ablation: A State-of-the-Art Review. Recalled But Responsive: Easier Extraction of Recalled Leads. Vein of Marshall Ethanol Infusion: Beware the Left Atrial Appendage Isolation. Changes in QRS morphology during antidromic atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia. Exercise-induced type 1 Brugada pattern in a child.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1