论文部分内容阅读
目的观察胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死后室性心律失常患者的效果。方法将医院2013年12月-2015年3月治疗的急性心肌梗死后室性心律失常患者96例随机分为胺碘酮组与利多卡因组,每组48例。胺碘酮组给予胺碘酮治疗,利多卡因组给予利多卡因治疗。比较2组患者的临床疗效、心电图检查结果及不良反应发生情况。结果胺碘酮组总有效率为93.75%高于利多卡因组的66.67%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗前2组心率、QPR波群时限、QTc周期及PR间期比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后2组患者心率均较治疗前降低(P<0.05),QPR波群时限、QTc周期及PR间期均较治疗前延长(P<0.05);且治疗后胺碘酮组心率低于利多卡因组(P<0.05),QPR波群时限、QTc周期及PR间期长于利多卡因组(P<0.05)。胺碘酮组不良反应发生率为8.33%低于利多卡因组的27.08%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死后室性心律失常患者临床疗效确切,可显著改善患者心功能,且安全性较为可靠,适于临床推广应用。
Objective To observe the effect of amiodarone in patients with ventricular arrhythmias after acute myocardial infarction. Methods Ninety-six patients with ventricular arrhythmia after acute myocardial infarction treated in our hospital from December 2013 to March 2015 were randomly divided into amiodarone group and lidocaine group, 48 cases in each group. Amiodarone group was treated with amiodarone, and lidocaine group was treated with lidocaine. The clinical efficacy, ECG findings and adverse reactions in the two groups were compared. Results The total effective rate was 93.75% in the amiodarone group and 66.67% in the lidocaine group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in QPR wave group time, QTc cycle and PR interval between the two groups before treatment (P> 0.05). The heart rate of the two groups after treatment was lower than that before treatment (P <0.05) (P <0.05). After treatment, the heart rate of amiodarone group was lower than that of lidocaine group (P <0.05), QPR wave group time, QTc cycle and PR interval Longer than lidocaine group (P <0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in amiodarone group was 8.33%, lower than that in lidocaine group (27.08%), the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion Amiodarone is effective in treating patients with ventricular arrhythmia after acute myocardial infarction and can significantly improve the cardiac function of patients. The safety is more reliable and suitable for clinical application.