目的评价胺碘酮与普罗帕酮治疗快速性心房颤动(房颤)的临床疗效及安全性。方法 92例快速性房颤患者,根据不同的治疗方法分为研究组与对照组,各46例。对照组给予胺碘酮治疗,研究组给予普罗帕酮治疗,分析比较两组患者临床治疗效果、转复时间、心率、不良反应发生情况。结果研究组中显效28例、有效12例、无效6例,治疗总有效率为87.0%(40/46);对照组中显效30例、有效11例、无效5例,治疗总有效率为89.1%(41/46),两组治疗总有效率比较差异无统计学意义(χ~2=0.103,P>0.05)。研究组转复时间及心率分别为(157.9±124.8)min、(84.3±18.6)次/min;对照组分别为(211.8±130.9)min、(68.4±11.5)次/min,两组转复时间、心率比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究组中出现心动过缓1例,不良反应发生率为2.2%(1/46);对照组中出现心动过缓1例,低血压1例,不良反应发生率为4.3%(2/46),两组不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(χ~2=0.345,P>0.05)。结论在快速性房颤患者的临床治疗中,胺碘酮与普罗帕酮均有显著的临床治疗效果,但后者转复时间明显短于前者,不良反应较少,安全性较高,值得临床推广应用。 Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of amiodarone and propafenone in the treatment of rapid atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods A total of 92 patients with AF were divided into study group and control group according to different treatment methods, 46 cases in each group. The control group was treated with amiodarone. The study group was treated with propafenone. The clinical effects, recovery time, heart rate and adverse reactions of the two groups were analyzed and compared. Results In the study group, 28 cases were markedly effective, 12 cases were effective and 6 cases were ineffective. The total effective rate was 87.0% (40/46). In the control group, 30 cases were markedly effective, 11 cases were effective and 5 cases were ineffective. The total effective rate was 89.1 % (41/46). There was no significant difference in the total effective rate between two groups (χ ~ 2 = 0.103, P> 0.05). The recovery time and heart rate in the study group were (157.9 ± 124.8) min and (84.3 ± 18.6) min / min, respectively. The control group were (211.8 ± 130.9) min and (68.4 ± 11.5) min / , Heart rate difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). One case of bradycardia and 2.2% (1/46) adverse reactions occurred in the study group. One case of bradycardia and one case of hypotension occurred in the control group. The incidence of adverse reactions was 4.3% (2/46) There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups (χ ~ 2 = 0.345, P> 0.05). Conclusions Amiodarone and propafenone have significant clinical effects in the clinical treatment of patients with AF, but the latter have a significantly shorter recovery time and less adverse reactions, which is more safe and worthy of clinical treatment Promote the application.