Implantable cardioverter defibrillator compared with antiarrhythmic drug treatment in cardiac arrest survivors (the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg).
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator compared with antiarrhythmic drug treatment in cardiac arrest survivors (the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg).
复制标题
心脏骤停幸存者中植入式心脏复律除颤器与抗心律失常药物治疗的比较（汉堡心脏骤停研究）。
DOI：
10.1016/0002-8703(94)90101-5
复制
发表时间：
1994
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Cash Investigators
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Siebels;K. Kuck;Cash Investigators
1987年，汉堡心脏骤停研究（CASH），一项前瞻性、多中心、随机对照研究，在有记录的室性心动过速导致的心源性猝死幸存者中开始。到1991年12月，230例室性心动过速引起的心脏骤停幸存者（46例女性，184例男性，平均年龄57±11岁）被随机分配接受口服普帕酮（56例）、胺碘酮（56例）或美托洛尔（59例）治疗，或使用无抗心律失常药物的植入式除颤器（59例）。研究的主要终点是总死亡率。1992年3月，由于与植入式除颤器组相比死亡率过高，CASH的普罗帕酮组停止了。本文介绍了植入式除颤器治疗与普罗帕酮治疗的初步比较结果。与植入式除颤器治疗的患者相比，普罗帕酮组的总死亡率、猝死（12%）和心脏骤停复发或猝死（23%）的发生率显著高于植入式除颤器治疗的患者（0%,p< 0.05）。结论是，在心脏骤停幸存者中，普罗帕酮治疗不如植入式除颤器治疗有效。
In 1987, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study, was started in survivors of sudden cardiac death resulting from documented ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Through December 1991, 230 survivors (46 women, 184 men; mean age 57 ± 11 years) of cardiac arrest caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias were randomly assigned to receive either oral propafenone (56 patients), amiodarone (56 patients), or metoprolol (59 patients) or to have an implantable defibrillator (59 patients) without concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint of the study was total mortality. In March 1992, the propafenone arm of CASH was stopped because of excess mortality compared with the implantable defibrillator group. This article presents preliminary results of the comparison of implantable defibrillator therapy with propafenone therapy. A significantly higher incidence of total mortality, sudden death (12%), and cardiac arrest recurrence or sudden death (23%) was found in the propafenone group compared with the implantable defibrillator-treated patients (0%,p< 0.05). It was concluded that, in survivors of cardiac arrest, propafenone treatment is less effective than implantable defibrillator treatment.
电生理测试与动态心电图监测的比较，以预测室性快速心律失常的抗心律失常药物疗效。
DOI：
10.1056/nejm199308123290701
发表时间：
1993
期刊：
The New England journal of medicine
影响因子：
--
作者：
Mason,JW
通讯作者：
Mason,JW