硝苯地平舌下含服和乌拉地尔静脉注射治疗高血压急症临床疗效对比分析

目的对比硝苯地平舌下含服和乌拉地尔静脉注射治疗高血压急症的疗效。方法将117例高血压急症患者随机分为A组58例和B组59例,分别给予硝苯地平组和乌拉地尔静脉注射治疗。观察患者注射前和注射后5、30、60、120、180min血压及心率变化。结果 A组患者舌下含服硝苯地平5min后血压开始下降（P〈0.05）,30min达到高峰（P〈0.05）,3h时有上升趋势,血压下降同时心率有所增加（P〈0.05）;B组患者静脉注射乌拉地尔5min后血压开始下降（P〈0.05）,30min达到高峰并维持稳定,心率无明显改变（P〉0.05）;A组患者降压疗效总有效率77.6%显著低于B组93.6%（P〈0.05）;两组患者不良症状均较轻微,无患者终止治疗。结论静脉注射乌拉地尔治疗高血压急症具有起效快、降压疗效好、不良反应少、不增加心率等优点,疗效好于硝苯地平,值得临床推广应用。

Comparative Analysis on Effect of Sublingual Administration of Nifedipine and Venous Injection of Urapidil on Hypertension Emergency

Objective To compare the effect of sublingual administration of nifedipine and venous injection of urapidil on hypertension emergency.Methods 117 patients with hypertension emergency were randomly divided into group A（58 cases） and group B（59 cases）.The group A was treated with sublingual administration of nifedipine while the group B was treated with venous injection of urapidil.The blood pressures before and 5,30,60,120,180 min after treatment were recorded..Results The BP in group A dropped significantly 5 min after treatment（P 0.05）,and reached peak 30 min and began to elevate at 3 h.The BP in group B dropped significantly 5 min after treatment（P 0.05）,and reached peak 30 min and maintained stable without significant changes of heart rate（P 0.05）.The total efficacy of group A（77.6%） was significantly lower than that（93.6%） of group B（P 0.05）.All the patients in the two groups had slighter adverse symptoms,and no patients terminated treatment.Conclusions Venous injection of urapidil has the advantages of faster onset,better antihypertensive efficacy,and fewer adverse reactions without increasing the heart rate,with better effect than nifedipine on hypertension emergency,which is worthy of clinical application.