心源性晕厥患者56例动态心电图分析

目的探讨心源性晕厥的病因及24 h动态心电图在诊断心源性晕厥的应用价值。方法对56例可疑为心源性晕厥患者行动态心电图检查。结果缓慢性心律失常与快速性心律失常是心源性晕厥主要病因,56例患者的动态心电图检查中,与检出心律失常发作时间一致的晕厥13例(23.2%),且晕厥与心电图长R-R间期有显著的相关性。结论动态心电图检查对由于恶性心律失常引起的心源性晕厥的诊断有定性的价值,对部分器质性心脏病的诊断有参考作用。     

53例不明原因晕厥动态心电图分析

目的探讨动态心电图在不明原因晕厥诊断中的应用价值.方法对5 3例不明原因的晕厥患者进行24小时动态心电图检查.全部患者经病史、体检、常规心电图和体位性低血压试验等均未发现晕厥的直接原因.结果53例患者经24小时动态心电图检查,35例(66.04%)出现心律失常,12例(22.64%)出现晕厥发作,其中8例为缓慢型心律失常,4例为快速型心律失常,晕厥发作时间与检出心律失常时间一致.12例晕厥患者中,R-R间期＞3.0秒者共27次,其中16次发生晕厥;而R-R间期＜3.0秒者138次,无1例发生晕厥(P＜0.01).结论一些不明原因晕厥的发生与心律失常有关.24小时动态心电图检查对不明原因晕厥的病因诊断仍然具有重要的实用价值.     

86例晕厥患者十二导联动态心电图分析

目的探讨十二导联动态心电图（12导联Holter）在晕厥病因诊断中的应用价值。方法采用12导联Holter监测86例疑为严重心律失常所致的晕厥患者24小时内的动态心电图。嘱其尽量以诱因促使晕厥发作,并记录发作时间。结果86例患者经动态心电图检出各种心律失常23例,占26．74％,其中检出窦性心动过缓伴实性停搏6例,房室传导阻滞4例,窦房传导阻滞4例,阵发性房颤5例,室上性心动过速2例,室性心动过速2例,心电图长R—R间期〉3S共39例次,其中有26例次晕厥发作。而房室传导阻滞〈3s有485例次,对应时无晕厥发作。结论心源性晕厥的发生系停搏或一心动过速时间过长,有效心搏出量减少致脑部供血不足所致。晕厥与心电图R-R间期有显著的相关性。12导联Holter检查对心源性晕厥的病因诊断具有重要的临床应用价值。临床对发作性晕厥患者有必要进行动态心电图检查以明确病因,并给予及时治疗。     

56例晕厥患者动态心电图分析

目的:探讨动态心电图在晕厥病因诊断中的应用价值。方法:对56例疑为严重心律失常所致的1次或多次晕厥的患者观察24小时动态心电图。瞩其尽量以诱因促使晕厥发作,并记录发作时间。结果:(1)56例经动态心电图均检出有严重心律失常,13例(23.21% )晕厥发作与心律失常有关,其中尤其是与缓慢心律失常关系密切。心源性晕厥的发生系停搏或心动过速时间过长,有效心搏出量减少致脑部供血不足所致。(2)能够引起心源性晕厥的心律失常多见于40岁以上的患者,并随着年龄的增加而增多。结论:动态心电图检查可为心源性晕厥患者获得可靠的病因诊断。临床对发作性晕厥患者,尤其是中老年患者有必要进行动态心电图检查以明确病因,并给予及时治疗     

动态心电图诊断不明原因晕厥的临床价值

目的 探讨分析动态心电图诊断不明原因晕厥的临床价值.方法 对本院2011年7月～2012年8月收治的52例原因不明的昏厥患者进行24h动态心电图监测,观察分析其昏厥的引发原因.结果 52例患者中有20例出现了晕厥发作,占38.5％,有22例发生心律失常,占42.3％,有16例晕厥发作与心律失常有关,占30％,尤其与R-R间期的长短关系密切.16例晕厥的患者中,R-R间期≥3s的共有42次,其中有28次发生了晕厥症状,2s≤R-R间期＜3 8的共有172次,无1例发生晕厥症状.结论 原因不明的晕厥症状的发作多是由于患者心律不齐造成的,临床应用动态心电图对于不明原因的晕厥具有重要的诊断意义.     

动态心电图在不明原因晕厥中的诊断意义

目的 探讨动态心电图在不明原因晕厥中的诊断意义.方法 选择我院诊断为晕厥患者共350例,对本组350例患者均行动态心电图监测,记录24h动态心电图监测情况.根据24h监测期间是否有晕厥发作,把350例患者分为两组,有晕厥发作为晕厥组,共65例,无晕厥发作为无晕厥发作组,共285例.结果 本组350例患者中,在动态心电图监测过程中,有126例患者出现1种或者1种以上的严重心律失常,其中不包括单纯性室性早搏患者,发生严重心律失常患者所占比例为36.0％.晕厥组窦性停搏、窦房传导阻滞、房室传导阻滞、阵发性心房颤动或扑动、阵发性室上性心动过速、阵发性室性心动过速发生显著高于无晕厥发作组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 不明原因晕厥发作可能与心律失常有关.采用动态心电图监测不明原因晕厥患者有助于明确和鉴别诊断.     

动态心电图对心源性晕厥诊断的临床意义

目的探讨应用十二导联动态心电图（Holter）诊断心源性晕厥的临床意义。方法随机选取我院2010年8月至2011年1月收治的考虑为心源性晕厥患者70例,对其行24h或者更久时间的Holter检查,嘱患者通过诱因促使晕厥发作,记录晕厥发作的时间、次数及当时情况等,记录患者晕厥发作时心电图变化,回顾性分析心电图结果及所记录的临床资料并进行统计学分析。结果所有患者中,有晕厥症状33例（47．1％）,发生心律失常58例（82．9％）,其发作时间与心律失常发生时间相同。而在所有发生晕厥的患者中,RR间期〉3．0s33次,其中发生晕厥14次;而心室停搏〈3．0s共110次,均未发生晕厥。晕厥组与无晕厥组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,晕厥与RR间期〉3．0s有一定相关性。结论Holter检查具有简单、易操作、可重复性好等优点,对于心源性晕厥的诊断具有重要的临床价值,值得临床推广应用。当考虑患者为心源性晕厥时,应首选Holter检查应作为检测工具。     

24h动态心电图与常规心电图监测心律失常的临床意义

目的 探讨24 h动态心电图对心律失常的监测和诊断意义.方法 对458例患者用24 h动态心电图和常规心电图检查,并对其心律失常进行归纳对比分析.结果 458例患者常规心电图的心律失常检出率为56%.24 h动态心电图心律失常检出率为100%,室性早搏:动态心电图检出338例,占73.8%,其中室早二、三联律164例,...     

动态心电图对156例心源性晕厥患者的诊断价值

晕厥是临床上常见的危重症,以心源性晕厥最为严重,占8％-39％,且多为严重心律失常所致。动态心电图可了解心电变化与突发病变之间的关系,且能获取短暂发作的心律失常的心电图资料。目前已成为晕厥的重要检查手段。本文对156例疑为心源性晕厥患者行十二导联动态心电图检查,分析晕厥的病因。     

动态心电图对心源性晕厥的诊断价值

目的探讨应用动态心电图诊断心源性晕厥的临床价值。方法随机选取我院收治的考虑为心源性晕厥患者128例,行24h动态心电图检查,让患者通过诱因促使晕厥发作,记录晕厥发作的时间、次数及当时情况等,记录患者晕厥发作时心电图变化。结果本组128例患者,有晕厥症状62例(48.4%),发生心律失常104例(81.3%),发作时间与心律失常发生时间相同。所有发生晕厥的患者中,R-R间期>3.0s 49次,其中发生晕厥17次;而心室停搏<3.0 s 143次,均未发生晕厥。晕厥组与无晕厥组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论动态心电图具有操作简单可重复性好等优点,对于心源性晕厥的诊断具有重要的临床价值,值得临床推广应用。     

曲美他嗪联合参松养心胶囊治疗慢性心力衰竭合并频发室早

目的探讨曲美他嗪联合参松养心胶囊在老年慢性心力衰竭合并室性早搏中的治疗效果。方法对56例慢性心力衰竭伴频发室性早搏患者,在常规抗心力衰竭治疗基础上,加用曲美他嗪联合参松养心胶囊口服。应用24 h动态心电图监测室性早搏数量,心脏彩色多普勒测定左室射血分数(LVEF),并测定血浆BNP水平。结果治疗4周后,室性心律失常治疗总有效率为72.9%,未观察到心脏及其他不良反应。与治疗前比较,患者LVEF明显增加,血浆BNP水平明显下降,P<0.05。结论曲美他嗪联合参松养心胶囊治疗慢性心力衰竭合并室性早搏安全、有效。     

Comparison of 24-hour blood pressure profiles in patients with hypertension who were switched from amlodipine to nisoldipine.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare 24-hour blood pressure control and adverse effects in patients with essential hypertension who were switched from amlodipine to nisoldipine. DESIGN: Open-label, one-way crossover study. SETTING: Cardiac clinic and patients' homes. PATIENTS: Twenty-five patients with stage I or II essential hypertension stabilized with amlodipine for at least 3 months, of whom 21 patients completed the study. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring while receiving amlodipine 5 or 10 mg/day. Patients then were switched to nisoldipine 10 mg/day (> or = 65 yrs old) or 20 mg/day (< 65 yrs old) and returned to the clinic at 2-week intervals to assess cuff blood pressure, heart rate, adverse effects, and compliance. No adverse effects were experienced in 15 of the 25 patients. Lower extremity edema was the most commonly reported adverse effect (four patients). Two patients discontinued treatment because of pulmonary edema in one and chest pain in the other. Two patients were lost to follow-up. After a mean of 10.6 weeks, repeat 24-hour ambulatory monitoring was performed to evaluate blood pressure control with nisoldipine. Systolic and diastolic ambulatory results for daytime, nighttime, and total 24 hours were calculated. For amlodipine versus nisoldipine, no significant differences existed in any of the blood pressure parameters (p>0.05) in the 21 patients who completed the study, except for 24-hour diastolic pressure (p<0.05); however, this latter difference was only 2 mm Hg (nisoldipine 77 mm Hg, amlodipine 75 mm Hg). CONCLUSION: Both amlodipine and nisoldipine have similar 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure profiles. The frequency of lower extremity edema was no different after the switch to nisoldipine than when the patients were taking amlodipine.     

动态血压监测对非糖尿病高血压病患者微量白蛋白尿的预测价值

目的:探讨非糖尿病高血压病(EH)患者动态血压监测对尿微量白蛋白的预测价值。方法:84例EH患者分别按诊所血压值、24小时动态血压值分组,测定24小时尿微量白蛋白排泌量。结果:按诊所血压(140/90mmHg)分组时,两组患者尿微量白蛋白排泌量无显著性差异(P>0.05),按动态血压分组(130/80mmHg)时两组患者尿微量白蛋白排泌量差异有极显著性(P<0.01)。多变量相关分析显示尿微量白蛋白值与平均收缩压、平均舒张压均呈显著的正相关(P均<0.01),而与诊所血压值相关性小。多元逐步回归分析显示MSBP、nDBP是尿微量白蛋白独立的预测因子。结论:对非糖尿病的EH患者,动态血压监测对尿微量白蛋白有预测价值。     

冠心病患者不同时段动态动脉硬化指数的临床观察

目的 研究冠状动脉病变与动态动脉硬化指数(AASI)的关系.方法 对所有入选病例行冠状动脉造影检查,并根据冠状动脉造影结果分为冠心病组和正常对照组.于冠状动脉造影前或后进行24h血压检测和心脏彩色多普勒检查,并计算AASI.结果 冠心病组与正常对照组AASI有统计学差异(P<0.05).结论 AASI与冠状动脉粥样硬化相关.     

喹那普利对原发性高血压患者心率变异性的影响

目的评价血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEI)喹那普利对原发性高血压患者心率变异性(HRV)的影响。方法选择原发性高血压患者32例,分别记录喹那普利治疗4周前后24h动态心电图,进行心率变异性的时域分析和频域分析,并与对照组进行比较。结果原发性高血压组与对照组比较心率变异性降低,经喹那普利治疗后,原发性高血压组血压下降的同时心率变异性指标均显著改善。结论喹那普利可以改善原发性高血压患者的心率变异性。     

Role of 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring in a general hospital

During 1976, 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring was available to all physicians at this hospital, and 281 patients were investigated by 322 recordings. Cardiac arrhythmias requiring treatment were detected in 100 patients (36%). Some presented after symptoms such as faintness, giddiness, palpitations, collapse, or fits, but ominous arrhythmias were also found in asymptomatic patients. A demand pacemaker was implanted for episodic sinoatrial or atrioventricular conduction disorder in 30, while 70 patients (25%) required antiarrhythmic drug treatment for ventricular or atrial tachyarrhythmias. Facilities for ambulatory 24-hour ECG monitoring are necessary in any large hospital, and precise diagnosis in most of our patients studied could not have been achieved by any other investigation.     

老年高血压病病人的动态血压特点

目的 探讨老年高血压的动态血压特点。方法 采用无创动态血压仪监测并比较12例正常老年对照组、51例非老年高血压组、52例老年高血压组的ABPM各参数。结果 老年高血压组24h、白天、夜间SBP、DBP均值除白天DBP外,均显著高于老年对照组(P<0.05,P<0.01,P<0.001)。血压负荷值老年高血压组24h、白天、夜间SBP显著增高(P<0.01,P<0.001),DBP无差异。老年高血压组呈现夜间SBP下降率减小(P<0.05)。老年高血压与非老年高血压组比较,前者DBP均值及负荷值明显降低(P<0.01,P<0.001),而SBP两组无差异。各期老年高血压比较除白天SBP负荷值有差异外(P<0.05),余参数均无差异。结论 老年高血压主要表现为收缩期高血压,并伴有夜间血压下降率的减小。     

心率变异性与高血压患者靶器官损害的相关性研究

目的探讨心率变异性与高血压患者靶器官损害的相关性。方法分别检测高血压伴靶器官损害患者(实验组75例)、高血压患者不伴靶器官损害患者(对照组40例)24h动态心电图(SDNN、SDANN、LF、HF)、心脏彩超(LVM、LVMI)、颈动脉彩超、血生化、24h尿蛋白定量等指标。结果实验组SDNN、SDANN、RMSSD、HF低于对照组,实组组LF高于对照组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。实验组75例中左室肥厚者35例,对照组75例有10例左室肥厚。实验组颈动脉壁增厚率73.33%,对照组为10.67%。两组相比有统计学意义(P<0.01)。实验组24h尿蛋白定量与对照组相比有统计学意义(P<0.01)。实验组与对照组血糖相比无统计学意义(P>0.05),肌酐、TC、TG、LDL-C两组相比有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论高血压患者HRV程度与其靶器官功能损害程度有密切关系,定期观察高血压患者HRV与血压变化情况,并积极改善自主神经功能,对防治靶器官损害十分必要。     

Effect of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, on blood pressure in nondiabetic patients with mild to moderate hypertension

The effect of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, on ambulatory blood pressure was assessed in nondiabetic patients with mild to moderate hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-period crossover study. Nineteen patients on stable treatment with antihypertensive agent(s) received sitagliptin 100 mg b.i.d., 50 mg b.i.d., or placebo for 5 days, with at least a 7-day washout interval between periods. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure, including systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure, were monitored on days 1 and 5. Relative to placebo on day 1, the mean difference in 24-hour systolic blood pressure was -0.9 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -2.9 to 1.1; P = .46) with sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. and -2.8 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -4.9 to -0.8; P < .05) with 100 mg b.i.d. On day 5, the mean difference in 24-hour systolic blood pressure was -2.0 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -3.5 to -0.4; P < .05) with 50 mg b.i.d. and -2.2 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -3.7 to -0.6; P < .05) with 100 mg b.i.d. relative to placebo. For 24-hour diastolic blood pressure, there were no between-group differences in mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure on day 1. On day 5, sitagliptin 50 mg and 100 mg b.i.d significantly (P < .05) lowered mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure by -1.8 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -2.8 to -0.8) and -1.6 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -2.6 to -0.7), respectively, relative to placebo. Sitagliptin produced small but statistically significant reductions of 2 mm Hg to 3 mm Hg in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements acutely (day 1) and at steady state (day 5), and was generally well tolerated in nondiabetic patients with mild to moderate hypertension.