胺碘酮和毛花甙C转复阵发性心房颤动及 心房扑动疗效的比较

目的对比胺碘酮和毛花甙C治疗阵发性心房颤动(房颤)及心房扑动(房扑)的疗效。方法阵发性房颤及房扑发作1～72h,随机分为胺碘酮组(30例)和毛花甙C组(28例)，毛花甙C组静脉注射毛花甙C0.4～0.8mg;胺碘酮组静脉注射胺碘酮150或225mg后改为静脉滴注150～450mg,观察其复律情况,心室率的变化,QT间期及药物副作用。结果毛花甙C组,阵发性房颤24例,复律成功11例，阵发性房扑4例,复律成功2例。胺碘酮组,阵发性房颤25例,复律成功19例，阵发性房扑5例,复律成功3例。两组未复律者心室率均有明显控制，QT间期及副作用差异无显著性意义;毛花甙C组复律平均时间3.5h,胺碘酮组平均复律时间6.5h。结论阵发性房颤及房扑的复律胺碘酮疗效高于毛花甙C,二者心室率的控制及副作用无显著性差别，复律时间毛花甙C短于胺碘酮。

Comparsion between the effects of intravenous amiodarone and cedilanid in the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter

Objective:To compare the efficacy of intravenons amiodarone and cedilanid in conversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter to sinus rhythm and in control of ventricular rates.Method:The efficacy and safety of amiodarone and cedilanid were studied in 58 patients with atrial fibrillation and artril flutter 1-72 hours in duration.The amiodarone 150-675 mg or cedilanid 0.4 - 0.8 mg were given intravenonsly. The cardiac rhythms,ventricular rates,QT duration, BP and side effects of the drugs were observed during study.Result:In 28 patients of group of cedilanid ,11 out of 24 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were conversed to sinus rhythm,2 out of 4 patients with paroxysmal atrial flutter were conversed to sinus rhythm.In 30 patients of amiodarone group, 19 out of 25 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were conversed to sinus rhythm and 3 out of 5 patients with paroxysmal atrial flutter were conversed to sinus rhythm. The ventricular rates were obviously controlled and QT duration had no significantr difference. The average conversion time of cedilanid group was 3.5 hours and that of amiodarone group was 6.5 hours.Conclusion:These data demonstrate that amiodrone is more effective than cedilanid in converting atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter and both drugs can effectively control the ventricular rates