4.6 Article

The long-term survival benefit conferred by intermittent dobutamine infusions and oral amiodarone is greater in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy than with ischemic heart disease

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 108, 期 2, 页码 244-250

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2005.05.012

关键词

congestive heart failure; cardiomyopathy; ischemic heart disease; inotropic agents; intermittent dobutamine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Intermittent dobutamine infusions (IDI) combined with oral amiodarone improve the survival of patients with end-stage congestive heart failure (CHF). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether the response to long-term treatment with IDI+amiodarone is different in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) versus idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC). Methods: The prospective study population consisted of 21 patients with IHD (the IHD Group) and 16 patients with IDC (the IDC Group) who presented with decompensated CHIF despite optimal medical therapy, and were successfully weaned from an initial 72-h infusion of dobutamine. They were placed on a regimen of oral amiodarone, 400 mg/day and weekly IDI, 10 mu g/kg/min, for 8 h. Results: There were no differences in baseline clinical and hemodynamic characteristics between the 2 groups. The probability of 2-year survival was 44% in the IDC Group versus 5% in the IHD Group (long-rank, P=0.004). Patients with IDC had a 77% relative risk reduction in death from all causes compared to patients with IHD (odd ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.70, P=0.007). In contrast, no underlying disease-related difference in outcomes was observed in a retrospectively analyzed historical comparison Group of 29 patients with end stage CHIF treated by standard methods. Conclusions: Patients with end stage CHF due to IDC derived a greater survival benefit from IDI and oral amiodarone than patients with IHD. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据