Clinical Effect of Sackubactril and Valsartan in the Treatment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Its Effect on Cardiac Structure
Objective: To observe the clinical effect of sackubactril valsartan in the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation and its effect on cardiac structure. Methods: A total of 110 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who were treated in our hospital from January 2023 to December 2023 were randomly selected and divided into observation group and control group by random number method, 55 patients in each group were treated with sacubactril valsartan + amiodarone or amiodarone alone. The proportion of electro cardioversion at 14 days after treatment, the recurrence rate at 1 year follow-up, the structural changes of left ventricle and left atrium before and after ultrasound, and the hemodynamic changes were compared between the two groups. Results: The 14 d electro cardioversion rate, 6-month and 1-year atrial fibrillation recurrence rates in the observation group were 20.00%, 10.91% and 27.27%, respectively, which were lower than those in the control group (49.49%, 25.45% and 58.18%, χ 2= 10.292, P = 0.001; χ 2= 3.911, P = 0.048; χ 2= 10.736, P = 0.001). left anterior descending (LAD), left atrial volume (LAV), left atrial volume index (left atrial volume index), left anterior descending (LAD), left atrial volume index (LAV) LAVI), left atrial strain during reservoir phase (LASr), left ventricular ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction, LASr) LVEF), left ventricular end diastolic diameter (left ventricular end diastolic diameter, There were no significant differences in LVEDD and left ventricular end systolic diameter (LVESD) levels (P > 0.05). After 1 year of treatment, there were intra-group differences in the above indicators between the two groups compared with before treatment (P < 0.05). However, LASr and LVEF in observation group were higher than those in control group, and other indexes were lower than those in control group (P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the heart rate between the two groups before treatment (P > 0.05), and the heart rate of the two groups after treatment was lower than that before treatment (P < 0.05), and the observation group was (75.44 ± 7.69) times/min, lower than the control group (88.63 ± 8.29) times/min, (t = 8.651; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Sakubactril valsartan is beneficial to the recovery of sinus rhythm in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, and long-term use can help the recovery of heart structure and reduce heart rate, but does not affect the blood pressure of patients, which has good clinical application value.
Sacubactril Valsartan
心房颤动简称房颤,是由于心肌组织电重构、神经重构和结构重构所致的室上性心律失常,同时伴有不协同的心房电激动,以及无效的心房收缩
随机选择2023年1月至2023年12月至我院进行治疗的持续性房颤患者110例进行本次研究。其中男性患者42例,女性患者68例,使用随机数字法将患者分为观察组和对照组各55例,两组患者基线资料无统计学差异(P > 0.05)。本次研究报请医院伦理委员会研究并通过。
诊断标准:根据中华医学会心电生理和起搏分会(China Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology, CSPE)发表《心房颤动:目前的认识和治疗建议-2018》
纳入标准:(1) 根据病史、体格检查及辅助检查(心电图、24 h动态心电图及超声心动图)确诊为持续性房颤;(2) 超声心动图测量左心房前后径20~50 mm;(3) 年龄18~75岁。
排除标准:(1) 瓣膜性房颤及先天性心脏病。(2) 合并严重感染性疾病;(3) 严重肝肾功能不全、肿瘤、血液或免疫系统疾病;(4) 甲状腺、慢性阻塞性肺疾病;(5) 低血压、电解质紊乱;(6) 沙库巴曲缬沙坦和胺碘酮治疗药物禁忌;(7) 超声心电图检测左心房血栓。
对照组患者予以盐酸胺碘酮片(北京嘉林药业股份有限公司,国药准字H20003843,0.2 g × 10 s) 0.2 g,日3次口服。观察组在此基础上增加沙库巴曲缬沙坦钠片(诺欣妥,北京诺华制药有限公司,国药准字J20171054,100 mg*14 s) 50 mg,日2次,口服。14 d后未恢复窦性心律患者予以电复律治疗。所有患者胺碘酮用量至第2个月减少至0.2 g,日2次,第3个月减量为0.2 g,日1次,并以该剂量维持至第12个月。观察组患者沙库巴曲缬沙坦维持用药12个月。
(1) 比较两组患者近期和远期疗效。记录两组患者治疗14 d后因为未恢复窦性心律而实施电复律比例以及治疗1年时间内持续性房颤的发生率。(2) 比较两组患者治疗前后心脏结构的变化。心脏结构采用心脏超声(Philips,EPIQ7C)检查。包括左心房内径(left anterior descending, LAD)、左心房容积(left atrial volume, LAV)、左心房容积指数(left atrial volume index, LAVI)、左心房存储应变(left atrial strain during reservoir phase, LASr)、左心室射血分数(left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF)、舒张末期内径(left ventricular end diastolic diameter, LVEDD)、收缩末期内径(left ventricular end systolic diameter, LVESD)。检查由同一名未参与研究的资深超声进行,并使用双盲法获得数据。(3) 比较两组患者治疗前后血流动力学指标变化。记录两组患者治疗前后心率、平均动脉压以及血氧饱和度。
本研究中的数据分为计量资料(t)和计数资料(X²),并利用统计学软件(SPSS 22.0版本)进行分析。符合正态分布的计量资料(患者年龄及病程、治疗前后心脏结构变化、治疗前后血流动力学变化)以( )表示,并采用t检验,计数资料(患者基础疾病发生情况、近期和远期疗效)使用样本数量和百分比表示(n,%)。在进行统计分析时,当P值小于0.05时,结果具有统计学意义。
两组患者基线资料对比差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),见
组别 | n | 性别(男/女) | 年龄(岁) | 病程(月) | 基础疾病 | ||
高血压 | 冠心病 | 糖尿病 | |||||
对照组 | 55 | 24/31 | 72.33 ± 4.19 | 9.42 ± 2.03 | 37 (67.27) | 35 (63.64) | 16 (29.09) |
观察组 | 55 | 18/37 | 71.52 ± 3.88 | 8.94 ± 1.95 | 39 (70.91) | 41 (74.55) | 11 (20.00) |
t/χ2 | 1.387 | 1.052 | 1.265 | 0.170 | 1.533 | 1.227 | |
p | 0.239 | 0.295 | 0.209 | 0.680 | 0.216 | 0.268 |
观察组患者14 d电复律治疗率、6个月和1年房颤复发率分别为20.00%、10.91%和27.27%,均低于对照组的49.49%、25.45%和58.18%,对比差异有统计学(P > 0.05),详见
组别 | n | 14 d电复律 | 6个月复发 | 1年复发 |
对照组 | 55 | 27 (49.09) | 14 (25.45) | 32 (58.18) |
观察组 | 55 | 11 (20) | 6 (10.91) | 15 (27.27) |
χ2 | 10.292 | 3.911 | 10.736 | |
p | 0.001 | 0.048 | 0.001 |
两组患者治疗前LAD、LAV、LAVI、LASr、LVEF、LVEDD、LVESD水平对比无统计学意义(P > 0.05),治疗1年后,两组患者上述指标与治疗前相比差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),但观察组LAD、LAV、LAVI、LVEDD、LVESD低于对照组,LASr、LVEF高于对照组,变化更为明显,对比差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),详见
组别 | n | 左心房内径(mm) | 左心房容积(mL) | 左心房容积指数(mL/m2) | 左心房存储应变(%) | ||||
治疗前 | 治疗后 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | ||
对照组 | 55 | 42.85 ± 5.31 | 40.29 ± 5.26* | 66.49 ± 8.17 | 61.49 ± 7.22* | 40.15 ± 4.66 | 36.41 ± 4.88* | 14.41 ± 3.56 | 25.66 ± 4.01* |
观察组 | 55 | 42.47 ± 6.01 | 34.46 ± 6.02* | 67.80 ± 7.33 | 55.52 ± 8.06* | 39.89 ± 5.01 | 29.41 ± 4.60* | 14.52 ± 3.29 | 31.65 ± 5.50* |
t | 0.351 | 5.408 | 0.885 | 4.092 | 0.282 | 7.741 | 0.168 | 6.526 | |
p | 0.726 | 0.000 | 0.378 | 0.000 | 0.779 | 0.000 | 0.867 | 0.000 |
注:与治疗前相比*P < 0.05。
组别 | n | 左心室射血分数(%) | 舒张末期内径(mm) | 收缩末期内径(mm) | |||
治疗前 | 治疗后 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | ||
对照组 | 55 | 50.42 ± 4.33 | 51.09 ± 4.93* | 58.06 ± 6.31 | 56.33 ± 5.82* | 50.46 ± 4.88 | 48.59 ± 5.07* |
观察组 | 55 | 49.82 ± 4.86 | 57.46 ± 6.02* | 57.49 ± 5.80 | 48.09 ± 6.17* | 51.31 ± 5.09 | 41.11 ± 4.27* |
t | 0.684 | 6.071 | 0.493 | 7.205 | 0.894 | 8.369 | |
p | 0.496 | 0.000 | 0.623 | 0.000 | 0.373 | 0.000 |
注:与治疗前相比*P < 0.05。
组别 | n | 心率(次/min) | 平均动脉压(mmHg) | 血氧饱和度(%) | |||
治疗前 | 治疗后 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | ||
对照组 | 55 | 113.52 ± 10.29 | 88.63 ± 8.29* | 106.42 ± 8.93 | 105.47 ± 9.63 | 96.41 ± 1.52 | 96.29 ± 1.60 |
观察组 | 55 | 108.44 ± 9.63 | 75.44 ± 7.69* | 105.33 ± 7.29 | 107.44 ± 8.86 | 94.33 ± 1.86 | 95.31 ± 2.02 |
t | 2.673 | 8.651 | 0.701 | 1.116 | 6.422 | 2.820 | |
p | 0.009 | 0.000 | 0.485 | 0.267 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
注:与治疗前相比*P < 0.05。
两组患者治疗前心率对比无统计学差异(P > 0.05),治疗后两组患者心率与治疗前相比均降低,对比差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),且观察组低于对照组,对比差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),两组患者治疗前后平均动脉压、血氧饱和度对比差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05),详见
作为临床上最常见的心律失常性疾病,心房颤动是以室上性心律失常,同时伴有不协调的心房电激动和无效的心房收缩为特点,对机体会造成严重的危害
胺碘酮是临床常用的治疗心律失常的药药物,通过延长心脏纤维动作电位时程、降低窦房结的自律性等机制帮助心脏恢复窦性心律。但是对于持续性房颤,由于个体差异性等因素的影响部分患者疗效并不理想
从本次研究来看,观察组患者14 d电复律治疗率、6个月和1年房颤复发率分别为20.00%、10.91%和27.27%,均低于对照组的49.49%、25.45%和58.18%。说明使用两种药物联合应用更有利于此类疾病患者的复率,而且能够减少患者房颤的复发率。这与该药物改善患者心脏结构,从根本上破坏了房颤的发病机制有关。在对患者心脏结构的改变上,两组患者治疗前LAD、LAV、LAVI、LASr、LVEF、LVEDD、LVESD水平均无明显差异(P > 0.05),治疗1年后,两组患者上述指标与治疗前相比均有组内差异(P < 0.05),但观察组LAD、LAV、LAVI、LVEDD、LVESD低于对照组,LASr、LVEF高于对照组,变化更为明显,具有显著统计学差异(P < 0.05)。可见患者左心室和左心房的结构在沙库巴曲缬沙坦的联合应用下,改善的更为明显,同时射血能力也显著增强。从患者的血流动力学上看,治疗后两组患者心率与治疗前相比均降低(P < 0.05),且观察组低于对照组(P < 0.05),这是因为患者心脏结构得以恢复,心肌收缩例和心脏射血能力增强后,心率发生降低改变,心率的变化也减少了房颤发生风险。刘菲
综上所述,沙库巴曲缬沙坦有利于持续性房颤患者恢复窦性心律,长期使用能够帮助患者心脏结构的恢复,降低心率,但是不会影响患者的血压,具有很好的临床应用价值。