-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Kontrola srdeční frekvence versus kontrola rytmu u nemocných se srdečním selháním [Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure]
Denis Roy, et al.
Jazyk angličtina Země Česko
- MeSH
- amiodaron terapeutické užití MeSH
- antiarytmika terapeutické užití MeSH
- beta blokátory terapeutické užití MeSH
- digitalisové glykosidy terapeutické užití MeSH
- dysfunkce levé srdeční komory MeSH
- elektrická defibrilace MeSH
- fibrilace síní prevence a kontrola MeSH
- hospitalizace statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- inhibitory ACE terapeutické užití MeSH
- Kaplanův-Meierův odhad MeSH
- kardiovaskulární nemoci mortalita MeSH
- kombinovaná terapie MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- následné studie MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- srdeční frekvence MeSH
- srdeční selhání farmakoterapie komplikace terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
It is common practice to restore and maintain sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure. This approach is based in part on data indicating that atrial fibrillation is a predictor of death in patients with heart failure and suggesting that the suppression of atrial fibrillation may favorably affect the outcome. However, the benefits and risks of this approach have not been adequately studied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing the maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm control) with control of the ventricular rate (rate control) in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, symptoms of congestive heart failure, and a history of atrial fibrillation. The primary outcome was the time to death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: A total of 1376 patients were enrolled (682 in the rhythm-control group and 694 in the rate-control group) and were followed for a mean of 37 months. Of these patients, 182 (27%) in the rhythm-control group died from cardiovascular causes, as compared with 175 (25%) in the rate-control group (hazard ratio in the rhythm-control group, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.59 by the log-rank test). Secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups, including death from any cause (32% in the rhythm-control group and 33% in the rate-control group), stroke (3% and 4%, respectively), worsening heart failure (28% and 31%), and the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, or worsening heart failure (43% and 46%). There were also no significant differences favoring either strategy in any predefined subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure, a routine strategy of rhythm control does not reduce the rate of death from cardiovascular causes, as compared with a rate-control strategy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00597077.) 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure
Komentář [Kontrola srdeční frekvence versus kontrola rytmu u nemocných se srdečním selháním].
- 000
- 00000naa 2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc07521984
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20111210133041.0
- 008
- 090423s2008 xr e eng||
- 009
- AR
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng $b cze
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Roy, Denis
- 245 10
- $a Kontrola srdeční frekvence versus kontrola rytmu u nemocných se srdečním selháním / $c Denis Roy, et al.
- 246 11
- $a Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure
- 314 __
- $a Montreal Heart Institute and the Université de Montréal, Montréal
- 520 9_
- $a It is common practice to restore and maintain sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure. This approach is based in part on data indicating that atrial fibrillation is a predictor of death in patients with heart failure and suggesting that the suppression of atrial fibrillation may favorably affect the outcome. However, the benefits and risks of this approach have not been adequately studied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing the maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm control) with control of the ventricular rate (rate control) in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, symptoms of congestive heart failure, and a history of atrial fibrillation. The primary outcome was the time to death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: A total of 1376 patients were enrolled (682 in the rhythm-control group and 694 in the rate-control group) and were followed for a mean of 37 months. Of these patients, 182 (27%) in the rhythm-control group died from cardiovascular causes, as compared with 175 (25%) in the rate-control group (hazard ratio in the rhythm-control group, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.59 by the log-rank test). Secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups, including death from any cause (32% in the rhythm-control group and 33% in the rate-control group), stroke (3% and 4%, respectively), worsening heart failure (28% and 31%), and the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, or worsening heart failure (43% and 46%). There were also no significant differences favoring either strategy in any predefined subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure, a routine strategy of rhythm control does not reduce the rate of death from cardiovascular causes, as compared with a rate-control strategy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00597077.) 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
- 650 _2
- $a beta blokátory $x terapeutické užití $7 D000319
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a amiodaron $x terapeutické užití $7 D000638
- 650 _2
- $a inhibitory ACE $x terapeutické užití $7 D000806
- 650 _2
- $a antiarytmika $x terapeutické užití $7 D000889
- 650 _2
- $a fibrilace síní $x prevence a kontrola $7 D001281
- 650 _2
- $a kardiovaskulární nemoci $x mortalita $7 D002318
- 650 _2
- $a kombinovaná terapie $7 D003131
- 650 _2
- $a digitalisové glykosidy $x terapeutické užití $7 D004071
- 650 _2
- $a elektrická defibrilace $7 D004554
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a následné studie $7 D005500
- 650 _2
- $a srdeční selhání $x farmakoterapie $x komplikace $x terapie $7 D006333
- 650 _2
- $a srdeční frekvence $7 D006339
- 650 _2
- $a hospitalizace $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D006760
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a Kaplanův-Meierův odhad $7 D053208
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a dysfunkce levé srdeční komory $7 D018487
- 773 0_
- $w MED00012706 $t Clinical cardiology alert $g Roč. 2, č. 5 (2008), s. 37-38 $x 1213-2586
- 787 18
- $w bmc07521985 $i Recenze v: $t Komentář [Kontrola srdeční frekvence versus kontrola rytmu u nemocných se srdečním selháním]
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b B 2242 $c 407 a $y 9
- 990 __
- $a 20090423080915 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20090601112153 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 645073 $s 497989
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BMC __
- $a 2008 $b 2 $c 5 $d 37-38 $i 1213-2586 $m Clinical Cardiology Alert $x MED00012706
- LZP __
- $a 2009-15/mkme