当前位置:循环首页>正文

[GWICC2012]心房颤动治疗中节律控制与心率控制之争——美国卫理公会医院心血管中心电生理部主任Miguel Valderrabano教授专访

作者:  M.Valderrabano   日期:2012/11/28 17:38:16

国际循环网版权所有,谢绝任何形式转载,侵犯版权者必予法律追究。

这是一个我很想说但无法说的观点,因为大量的证据已证明抗凝剂可以预防卒中,但是没有真正的证据表明导管消融也可以预防卒中。目前导管消融有效性已被证实,但管消融达到的节律控制是否能长期预防卒中目前尚未证实,CABANA试验已着手这方面的探究。


  IC: What is the best way to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rhythm control and heart rate control with anticoagulant treatment? Especially as it relates to new treatments like closing off the LAA?
  《国际循环》:什么是评估节律、心率控制与抗凝治疗成本-效益的最好方法呢?尤其是当涉及到封堵左心耳这样的新型治疗方式时?
  Dr. Valderrabano: The best way is to have a randomized trial and then compare the costs. When are looking at device treatments to close the appendage, you have a very high up-front cost. You have to look five-years to see whether the strokes you prevent justify the cost of the procedure, the device, and the risk of re-hospitalizations. I am not convinced that these devices are going to overall better. It is an intriguing and worthwhile question. If you come up with a device that can both see the appendage and reduce the risk of stroke, then it will be justified. Some experts talk about combining an ablation procedure for rhythm and symptom control with a LAA plug. That may be the future.
  Valderrabano博士:最好的方法是进行随机试验,然后比较成本。进行封堵心耳的治疗需要非常高的前期投入成本,必须观察数年以评估脑卒中预防的程序、装置费用以及再入院的风险是否合理。我不确信这些设备是否更优化,这是一个既有趣又有价值的问题。如果你想出一个装置既能处理心耳又可以降低卒中的风险,那么这将是合理的。一些专家在谈论导管消融结合LAA封堵用于控制节律及症状,这可能是未来的方向。
  IC: What about today, what is the most cost-effective way to treat AF now?
  《国际循环》:那些现在什么是最划算的治疗房颤的方式呢?
  Dr. Valderrabano: In my personal practice, what I do may not be the most cost-effective but it does achieve the most patient satisfaction. If there are symptoms, I start with drugs. However, a drug’s efficacy depends on achieving sinus rhythm, if it does not do that, then you are wasting your time and may result in potential toxicity. Ablation is what I do most commonly for rhythm control and symptom control. In patients that are high-risk for stroke, they must be on anticoagulants. I try warfarin first for several reasons. If you have a good system for mainting the INR in therapeutic range, warfarin is as good as dabigatran. This has been shown in a subset of the RELY trial in centers in which the time in therapeutic range was more than 75%. There was no difference between dabigatran and warfarin. Warfarin in very cheap and though you have to control the INR, there are ways to achieve this. You may have to purchase a portable INR monitor. It is only a matter of time before these become cheap. In the US, because of insurance reasons, many will not allow dabigatran as a first line of therapy or will ask for a significant co-pay from patients, up to

上一页  [1]  [2]  [3]  [4]  [5]  下一页

版面编辑:赵书芳  责任编辑:程金秀



心房颤动心耳封堵治疗

分享到: 更多


设为首页 | 加入收藏 | 关于我们 | 联系方式 | 招贤纳士
声明:国际循环网( www.icirculation.com)对刊载的所有文章、视频、幻灯、音频等资源拥有全部版权。未经本站许可,不得转载。
京ICP备15014970号-5  互联网药品信息服务资格证书编号(京)-非经营性-2017-0063  京公网安备 11010502033353号  增值电信业务经营许可证:京ICP证150541号
国际循环 版权所有   © 2004-2024 www.icirculation.com All Rights Reserved
公司名称:北京美赞广告有限公司 公司地址:北京市朝阳区朝阳门北大街乙12号天辰大厦1座1409 电话:010-51295530