论文部分内容阅读
目的观察比较普罗帕酮与胺碘酮治疗阵发性室上性心动过速的临床疗效。方法 60例阵发性室上性心动过速患者,根据治疗药物分为普罗帕酮组和胺碘酮组,每组30例。普罗帕酮组患者给予普罗帕酮药物治疗,胺碘酮组患者给予胺碘酮药物治疗。观察比较两组患者的复律成功率、复律时间以及服用药物期间患者的不良反应发生情况。结果胺碘酮组复律成功26例,成功率为86.67%,普罗帕酮组复律成功25例,成功率为83.33%,胺碘酮组的复律成功率略高于普罗帕酮组,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);普罗帕酮组复律时间明显短于胺碘酮组(P<0.05);普罗帕酮组产生的药物不良反应率为20.00%,胺碘酮组为6.67%,普罗帕酮组明显高于胺碘酮组(P<0.05)。结论在临床治疗阵发性室上性心动过速方面,普罗帕酮和胺碘酮两种药物均有一定的疗效,但各有利弊,普罗帕酮复律时间快,但不良反应多,患者耐受差,胺碘酮见效慢,但不良反应较少,安全性更高。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of propafenone and amiodarone in the treatment of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. Methods Sixty patients with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia were divided into propafenone group and amiodarone group according to the therapeutic drugs, 30 cases in each group. Propafenone group was given propafenone drug treatment, amiodarone group was given amiodarone drug treatment. The success rate of cardioversion, the time of cardioversion and the adverse reactions of patients in the two groups were observed and compared. Results The success rate of amiodarone group was 26 cases, the success rate was 86.67%, propafenone group 25 cases succeeded in cardioversion, the success rate was 83.33%. The success rate of amiodarone group was slightly higher than that of propafenone group, But the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05); propafenone cardioversion time was significantly shorter than the amiodarone group (P <0.05); propafenone group produced adverse drug reaction rate was 20.00%, amiodarone group Was 6.67%, propafenone group was significantly higher than amiodarone group (P <0.05). Conclusion Both propofol and amiodarone have certain curative effect in the clinical treatment of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, but each has its advantages and disadvantages, propafenone cardioversion time is fast, but adverse reactions, patients Poor tolerance, amiodarone effective, but less adverse reactions, higher safety.