论文部分内容阅读
目的对比老年持续性心房颤动(AF)的患者,控制房颤的心室率(频率控制)与恢复并维持窦性心律(节律控制)两种方法的治疗效果。方法频率控制组使用阿替洛尔和地高辛控制AF的心室率;节律控制组用胺碘酮或直流电转复并用胺碘酮维持窦性心律,比较3年后两组患者的病死率、致残率、生活质量及住院率。结果两组病人的病死率、生活质量相比较无统计学意义(P>0.05),频率控制组的致残率、住院率低于节律控制组(P<0.05)。结论控制AF心室率应列为持续性AF的首选治疗措施。
Objective To compare the effects of ventricular rate (frequency control), recovery and maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm control) on patients with persistent persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) in elderly patients. Methods Atenolol and digoxin were used to control the ventricular rate in the frequency control group. The rhythm control group was treated with amiodarone or DC, and amiodarone was used to maintain sinus rhythm. The mortality of the two groups after 3 years was compared. Disability rate, quality of life and hospitalization rate. Results The mortality and quality of life in the two groups were not statistically significant (P> 0.05). The morbidity and hospitalization rate in the frequency control group were lower than those in the rhythm control group (P <0.05). Conclusion The control AF ventricular rate should be listed as the preferred treatment of persistent AF.