心律平与胺碘酮治疗心律失常疗效比较的Meta分析

Meta-analysis and clinical efficacy comparison of propafenone and amiodarone in treatment of arrhythmia

目的评价文献中运用心律平与胺碘酮治疗心律失常的疗效。方法运用计算机检索Pubmed、EMbase、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库中关于心律平和胺碘酮在治疗心律失常疗效的随机对照试验,将检索时限定为2000年1月~2014年7月。对检索到的论文进行客观质量评价,应用Cochrane协作网提供的Rev Man 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果通过药物静脉注射给药,2组心律失常总有效率差异有统计学意义(OR=1.68,95%CI:1.25~2.26,P<0.0001);药物口服给药,2组心律失常总有效率差异有统计学意义(OR=1.49,95%CI:1.09~2.03,P=0.010);2组不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(OR=0.85,95%CI:0.62~1.16,P>0.05)。结论胺碘酮组治疗心率失常的疗效优于心律平,但对于药物的不良反应率并不增加。

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of propafenone and amiodarone in treatment of arrhythmia in literatures. Methods Literatures of randomized controlled trials about the efficacy of propafenone and amiodarone in treatment of arrhythmia were searched in Pubmed,EMbase,the Cochrane library and the Chinese biomedical literature database from January 2000 to July 2014 by computer retrieval. The quality of the literatures were evaluated objectively,and Meta-analysis was conducted with Rev Man 5. 3 software applied by Cochrane collaboration. Results With drugs administered intravenously,the difference of total effective rate between propafenone and amiodarone was significant( OR = 1. 68,95% CI: 1. 25 2. 26,P <0. 0001); with drugs administered orally,the difference of total effective rate between propafenone and amiodarone was significant(OR = 1. 49,95%CI: 1. 09 2. 03,P = 0. 010);the incidence of adverse reactions between two groups had no significant difference(OR = 0. 85,95% CI: 0. 62 1. 16,P < 0. 001). Conclusion The curative effect of amiodarone group in treatment of arrhythmia is superior to the propafenone,but the drug adverse reactions rate doesn't increase.