目的 系統(tǒng)評(píng)價(jià)伊布利特與胺碘酮治療心房顫動(dòng)的有效性與安全性。方法 檢索中國學(xué)術(shù)期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫（CNKI）、中國生物醫(yī)學(xué)文獻(xiàn)數(shù)據(jù)庫（CBM）、維普中文期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫（VIP）、萬方數(shù)據(jù)庫、PubMed、Embase和Cochrane Library，檢索時(shí)間均為建庫至2019年6月。納入伊布利特與胺碘酮比較治療房顫的隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn)（RCTs），由兩名研究員獨(dú)立篩選并提取資料，采用Cochrane標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià)，運(yùn)用RevMan 5.3軟件進(jìn)行Meta-分析。結(jié)果 最終納入18篇RCTs進(jìn)行Meta-分析，結(jié)果顯示伊布利特組較胺碘酮組治療房顫的有效性（OR=2.65，95% CI=2.03～3.46，P<0.000 01）、房顫轉(zhuǎn)復(fù)時(shí)間（WMD=-21.54，95% CI=-24.73～-18.34，P<0.000 01）均優(yōu)于胺碘酮組；兩組治療房顫安全性比較差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（RR=0.74， 95% CI=0.46～1.18， P=0.20），但胺碘酮組不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生率（18.36%）稍高于伊布利特組（16.18%）。結(jié)論 伊布利特對(duì)房顫轉(zhuǎn)復(fù)的有效率顯著高于胺碘酮，轉(zhuǎn)復(fù)時(shí)間亦較胺碘酮短，在安全性方面二者無顯著差異。由于納入樣本量較少，以后研究中仍需大樣本、高質(zhì)量的RCT進(jìn)一步確認(rèn)以期得到可靠的結(jié)果。

Objective To review systematically the efficacy and safety of ibutilide and amiodarone intreatment of atrial fibrillation. Methods The databases of CNKI, CBM, VIP, Wan Fang Data, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library the retrieval time was to build the database to June 2019. Include randomized controlled trials comparing iblitide with amiodarone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. The data were independently selected and extracted by two researchers, evaluated using Cochrane's criteria, and Metaanalysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results Finally included 18 RCTs for Meta-analysis. The results of Metaanalysis showed that efficacy of iblitide group in treating atrial fibrillation compared with amiodarone group (OR=2.65, 95%CI=2.03~3.46, P<0.000 01)、atrial fibrillation recovery time (WMD=-21.54, 95%CI=-24.73~-18.34, P<0.000 01) was better than the amiodarone group; There was no significant difference in the safety of atrial fibrillation between the ibutilide group and the amiodarone group (RR=0.74, 95%CI=0.46~1.18, P=0.20). However, the incidence of adverse reactions in the amiodarone group (18.36%) was slightly higher than that in the ibutilide group (16.18%). Conclusion Ibutilide was significantly more effective in converting atrial fibrillation than amiodarone, the conversion time was shorter than that of amiodarone.and they have no difference in safety. Due to the small number of included samples, large samples and high-quality RCTs are still needed for further confirmation in future studies in order to obtain reliable results.

R972