论文部分内容阅读
目的:系统评价毛花苷C治疗快速型室上性心律失常的疗效和安全性。方法:电子检索Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、EMCC、CHKD、sciencedirect等数据库,纳入毛花苷C治疗快速型室上性心律失常所有随机对照试验,逐个进行质量评价和资料提取,并进行Meta分析。结果:符合纳入标准的文章22篇包括1320例患者进入本系统评价。Meta分析结果显示:(1)治疗房颤:①与胺碘酮比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.00001);与地尔硫(?)比较,差异有统计学意义(P=0.0005);与普罗帕酮比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.0001);与维拉帕米比较,有统计学意义(P=0.0003);②不良反应发生率:与胺碘酮比较,差异有统计学意义(P=0.01);与地尔硫(?)比较,差异有统计学意义(P=0.04);③平均转复时间:与胺碘酮比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.00001);与地尔硫(?)比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.00001)。(2)治疗阵发性室上性心动过速,与普罗帕酮的有效率比较,差异有显著统计学意义(P=0.0007)。结论:本系统评价显示:对于房颤及阵发性室上性心动过速,毛花苷C的疗效不如胺碘酮、地尔硫(?)、维拉帕米、普罗帕酮等典型抗心律失常药物;安全性方面,毛花苷C优于其他药物,故对于房颤及阵发性室上性心动过速等快速型室上性心律失常,应该首选典型抗心律失常药物治疗,毛花苷C只能作为二线治疗药物,用于上述药物无效的病例。
Objective: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of glocoside C in the treatment of rapid supraventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMCC, CHKD, and sciencedirect databases were searched electronically. All randomized controlled trials of curcumin C in the treatment of rapid supraventricular arrhythmias were conducted. Quality evaluation and data extraction were performed one by one, and Meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles that met the inclusion criteria included 1320 patients enrolled in this systematic review. Meta analysis showed that: (1) The treatment of atrial fibrillation: ① Compared with amiodarone, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.00001); compared with diltiazem (P = 0.0005); Compared with propafenone, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.0001); Compared with verapamil, there was statistical significance (P = 0.0003); ② The incidence of adverse reactions: compared with amiodarone, the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.01). Compared with diltiazem (P <0.01), the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.04). The mean recovery time was statistically significant compared with amiodarone (P <0.00001) Compared with diltiazem (?), The difference was statistically significant (P <0.00001). (2) The treatment of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, compared with the efficiency of propafenone, the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows that for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, the efficacy of glocoside C is not as good as that of amiodarone, diltiazem (?), Verapamil, propafenone, etc. Arrhythmia drugs; safety, cinnarcoside C is superior to other drugs, it is atrial fibrillation and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia and other rapid supraventricular tachyarrhythmias, should be the preferred antiarrhythmic drug treatment, hair The glycoside C can only be used as second-line treatment for the above ineffective cases of drugs.