论文部分内容阅读
目的比较硝苯地平控释片与非洛地平缓释片治疗老年单纯性收缩期高血压的临床疗效和安全性。方法将76例老年单纯性收缩期高血压患者随机分为对照组38例和试验组38例。对照组予以非洛地平缓释片5 mg,qd,口服;试验组予以硝苯地平控释片30 mg,qd,口服。2组患者均治疗6周。比较2组患者的临床疗效、血压和药物不良反应的发生情况。结果治疗后,试验组和对照组的总有效率分别为92.11%(35/38例)和73.68%(28/38例),收缩压分别为(129.28±13.02)和(136.35±14.09)mm Hg,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。试验组患者的药物不良反应有头晕和水肿,对照组的药物不良反应有头晕、水肿、皮疹。试验组和对照组的药物不良反应发生率分别为5.26%和7.89%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论硝苯地平控释片治疗老年单纯性收缩期高血压的临床疗效明显优于非洛地平缓释片,且不增加药物不良反应的发生率。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of nifedipine controlled-release tablets and felodipine sustained-release tablets in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Methods Seventy-76 elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension were randomly divided into control group (38 cases) and experimental group (38 cases). The control group was given felodipine sustained-release tablets 5 mg, qd, oral; test group was given nifedipine 30 mg, qd, oral. Two groups of patients were treated for 6 weeks. The clinical efficacy, blood pressure and adverse drug reactions in two groups were compared. Results After treatment, the total effective rates of the experimental group and the control group were 92.11% (35/38 cases) and 73.68% (28/38 cases), respectively. The systolic blood pressure was (129.28 ± 13.02) and (136.35 ± 14.09) mm Hg , The differences were statistically significant (all P <0.05). Adverse drug reactions in patients with experimental group were dizziness and edema, the control group of adverse drug reactions dizziness, edema, rash. The incidence of adverse drug reactions in the experimental group and the control group were 5.26% and 7.89%, respectively, with no significant difference (P> 0.05). Conclusion The efficacy of nifedipine controlled release tablets in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension was significantly better than that of felodipine and did not increase the incidence of adverse drug reactions.