摘要
目的 评价依布利特和普罗帕酮治疗心房扑动（房扑）和心房颤动（房颤）的疗效和安全性.方法 通过检索历年中英文电子文献数据库和手工检索的方式,纳入符合标准的依布利特和普罗帕酮治疗房扑或房颤的所有随机对照试验,依次进行质量评价和资料提取,并进行Meta分析.结果 Meta分析显示：①房扑/房颤总转复率：依布利特（64.52%）高于普罗帕酮（42.37%）,差异有统计学意义（OR 2.50,95%CI1.64～3.83,P＜0.01）,漏斗图提示未见偏倚.②房颤转复率：依布利特（61.31%）高于普罗帕酮（41.61%）,差异有统计学意义（OR 2.24,95%CI 1.38～3.64,P＜0.01）,漏斗图提示未见偏倚.③房扑转复率：依布利特（82.69%）高于普罗帕酮（40.82%）,差异有统计学意义（OR 6.53,95%CI2.65～16.10,P＜0.01）,漏斗图提示未见偏倚.④不良反应发生率：两者不良反应率差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.结论 与普罗帕酮相比,依布利特可以更有效地转复房扑和房颤,两者安全性上无明显差别.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ibutilide and propafenone for treatment of atrial flutter（AFL） and atrial fibrillation（AF）. Methods The random controlled trials （RCTs） concerning the ibutilide and propafenone in the treatment of atrial flutter or atrial fibrillation were collected in a meta-analysis. The Rev Man 5.0 software of Cochrane Coordination Net was used for statistical analysis. Results Meta-analysis showed that ：①total cardioversion rate of ibutilide for AFL/AF （64.52%） was higher than that of propafenone（42. 37% ） （ P 〈0.05）. No bias was prompted on the funnel plot. ②cardioversion rate of Ibutilide for AF （61.31%） was higher than that of propafenone（41.61% ）（ P 〈0.05）. No bias was prompted on the funnel plot. ③cardioversion rate of Ibutilide for AFL （ 82.69% ） was higher than that of propafenone（40.82% ） （ P 〈 0.05 ）. No bias was prompted on the funnel plot. ④Adverse reaction rates showed no significant difference between the 2 medicine. Conclusion Compared with propafenone, ibutilide is more effective for the treatment of atrial flutter or atrial fibrillation, but the security of both drugs shows no significant difference.
出处
《中国医药》
2011年第1期20-22,共3页
China Medicine
