论文部分内容阅读
目的对比脑利钠肽与西地兰治疗心力衰竭的疗效及安全性。方法选择各种心血管疾病引起的心力衰竭患者55例,随机分为脑利钠肽治疗组(25例)和西地兰治疗组(30例)。脑利钠肽组:首先根据患者的体质量以1.5μg/kg静脉冲击1～2min,而后以0.0075ml·kg-1·min-1的速度微泵静脉滴注24～72h。西地兰组:西地兰0.2～0.4mg加入5%GS20ml中缓慢静推,1～2次/d,总量不超过1.2mg/d,必要时加用速尿20mg/d静推。其他治疗如扩张血管、抗炎等均相同。结果两组治疗前后平均心室率比较(p<0.01)。显示脑利钠肽在显效及有效方面均优于西地兰组(p<0.05),两组治疗前后心室率均较前明显减慢,但两组间比较无统计学差异(p>0.05)。结论脑利钠肽和西地兰在控制心室率上都有很好作用,脑利钠肽对于难治性和顽固性心衰患者短期应用可有效缓解症状,减少患者住院时间,且治疗效果及安全性好均较好。
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of brain natriuretic peptide and cedilanil in the treatment of heart failure. Methods 55 cases of heart failure caused by various cardiovascular diseases were randomly divided into brain natriuretic peptide group (25 cases) and cedilanid group (30 cases). Brain natriuretic peptide group: Firstly, according to the patient’s body weight, 1.5μg / kg intravenous pulse for 1 ~ 2min, then with the speed of 0.0075ml · kg-1 · min-1 micro-pump intravenous infusion of 24 ~ 72h. Cedilanid group: cedilanid 0.2-0.4mg added 5% GS20ml slowly push, 1 or 2 times / d, the total does not exceed 1.2mg / d, if necessary, furosemide plus 20mg / d push. Other treatments such as dilating blood vessels, anti-inflammatory, etc. are the same. Results Before and after treatment, the average ventricular rate was compared (p <0.01). The results showed that brain natriuretic peptide was superior to cedilanid (p <0.05) in both effective and effective aspects. The ventricular rate of both groups before and after treatment was significantly lower than before, but there was no significant difference between the two groups (p> 0.05) . Conclusion Brain natriuretic peptide and cedilanid have good effects on the control of ventricular rate. Short-term brain natriuretic peptide can effectively relieve symptoms and reduce hospitalization time in patients with refractory and refractory heart failure Good security are better.