林文华. 伊伐布雷定治疗慢性收缩性心力衰竭的效果[J]. 心脏杂志, 2018, 30(2): 192-195.
    引用本文: 林文华. 伊伐布雷定治疗慢性收缩性心力衰竭的效果[J]. 心脏杂志, 2018, 30(2): 192-195.
    The effectof ivabradine in patients with chronic systolic heart failure[J]. Chinese Heart Journal, 2018, 30(2): 192-195.
    Citation: The effectof ivabradine in patients with chronic systolic heart failure[J]. Chinese Heart Journal, 2018, 30(2): 192-195.

    伊伐布雷定治疗慢性收缩性心力衰竭的效果

    The effectof ivabradine in patients with chronic systolic heart failure

    • 摘要: 目的 探讨伊伐布雷定治疗慢性收缩性心力衰竭的临床疗效。方法 入选左室收缩功能不全并发慢性心力衰竭且为窦性心率≥70次/min患者76例,随机分为伊伐布雷定组(试药组,39例)和常规治疗组(对照组,37例),在2周、4周、6周及3个月时随访,记录其心率、血压、心血管不良事件、药物剂量。入院后及3个月行6分钟步行试验及心脏彩超。结果 3个月时,与对照组相比,试药组心率显著降低[(72±5)次/min vs.(62±4)次/min,P<0.05],血压显著升高[(116±8) mmHg vs.(123±7) mmHg,P<0.05],左室射血分数显著提高(P<0.05),左室收缩末内径及左房直径较对照组显著减小[分别(4.6±0.3) cm vs.(4.1±0.2) cm;(4.0±0.4) cm vs.(3.7±0.2) cm,均P<0.05]。6分钟步行距离显著增加[(522±81) m vs.(578±91) m,P<0.05];两组心功能分级至少增加1级,试药组左室射血分数改善更显著(62% vs. 35%,P<0.05)。结论 伊伐布雷定治疗慢性收缩性心力衰竭的疗效优于常规治疗。

       

      Abstract: AIM To assess the clinical effects of ivabradine in patients with chronic heart failure. METHODS 76 patients (baseline HR ≥70 bpm) with chronic heart failure were randomly divided into an Ivabradine group (treatment group 39 cases) and a conventional therapy group (control group 37 cases). Dosages of ivabradine were recorded at every routine patient visit (at 2, 4, and 6 weeks, and then 3 months), along with resting heart rate (by electrocardiogram), blood pressure, and major adverse cardiovascular events. A 6-min walking test and echocardiography were performed at baseline and at 3 months. Patients with and without ivabradine were compared for performance on the 6-min walking test at 3months (primary endpoint) and echocardiographic parameters at 3 months (LV ejection fraction, LV end-diastolic diameter, LV end-systolic diameter, and left atrial dimension). RESULTS Patients receiving ivabradine had lower resting heart rate at 3 months [(62±4) bpmversus (72±5) bpm, P<0.05]. In addition, the patients in the treatment group had higher systolic blood pressure [(123±7) mmHg versus (116±8) mmHg, P<0.05], a significant rise in left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.05), and significantly reduced LV end-systolic diameter and left atrial dimension [(4.6±0.3) cm vs.(4.1±0.2) cm, (4.0±0.4) cm vs.(3.7±0.2) cm, P<0.05]. The distance reached in 6-min walking test was significantly longer in the ivabradine group than in the control group (P<0.05). Significantly, more patients in the ivabradine group (62%) had an improvement of at least one NYHA class than in the control group (35%) (P<0.05). CONCLUSION Clinical effects of ivabradine administration in patients with chronic heart failure are superior to conventional treatment.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回