摘要
目的:对比胺碘酮与西地兰治疗阵发性心房颤动的疗效及安全性.方法:选择各种心血管疾病引起的阵发性房颤患者114例,随机分为胺碘酮治疗组(60例)和西地兰治疗组(54例).胺碘酮组:先给予胺碘酮负荷量150 mg于10min内静脉推注,然后以1 mg/min维持静脉滴注,依心室率情况调节胺碘酮剂量.西地兰组:以西地兰0.4 mg静脉注射,依见效情况调节剂量.观察血压和心室率变化及复律情况.结果:胺碘酮组治疗总有效率88.3%,高于西地兰组72.2%(P<0.05).两组用药后平均心室率下降幅度分别为39.0%和28.0%.胺碘酮组用药转复时间为(56.4±26.6)min,短于西地兰组转复时间(79.9±35.4)min(P<0.05).两者不良反应均较为轻微.结论:胺碘酮静脉用药治疗阵发性房颤较西地兰更为有效,且安全,副作用小.
Abstract
ADM: To compare the efficacy and safety of amiodarone and cedilanid on the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. METHODS: One hundred and fourteen patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation caused by various cardiovascular diseases were randomly divided into amiodarone group (60 cases) and cedilanid group (54cases). The cases in amiodarone group received intravenous injection of 150 mg amiodarone in 10 min and then followed by intravenous drip infusion 1 mg/min. The cases in cedilanid group received intravenous injection of 0. 4 mg. Doses were regulated by therapeutic efficacy. Blood pressure, ventricular rate and reversion were observed. RESULTS: The total efficiency rate of amiodarone group was 88. 3% , higher than that of cedilanid group( 72.2% , P < 0. 05). The mean ventricular rate decreased by 39.0% and 28.0% in the two groups respectively. The mean reversion time of the two groups was (56.4 ±26.6) and (79.9±35.4) minutes respectively (P < 0.05). Only mild side effects were observed in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Both amiodarone and cedilanid are safe and have only mild side effects but intravenous transfusion of amiodarone is more effective than cedilanid in the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
NETL
NSTL
维普
万方数据