静脉应用胺碘酮与西地兰对快速阵发性房颤的疗效比较

目的比较静脉推注胺碘酮与西地兰治疗快速阵发性房颤的疗效差异。方法选择92例快速阵发性房颤患者,随机分为胺碘酮组和西地兰组各46例,分别静推胺碘酮和西地兰,观察房颤的转复、心室率变化及不良反应。结果胺碘酮组与西地兰组的治疗有效率分别为82.61%和58.70%,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。两组治疗前后心室率下降均差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。其中胺碘酮组效果更明显,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论静脉应用胺碘酮治疗快速阵发性房颤,疗效优于西地兰,不良反应轻,值得推广。

Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy Between Amiodarone and Cedilanid in the Treatment of Rapid Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation with Intravenous Administration

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy between amiodarone and cedilanid in the treatment of rapid paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with intravenous administration. Methods 92 patients with rapid paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were selected and randomly divided into amiodarone group（n=46） and cedilanid group（n=46）, and respectively treated with amiodarone and cedilanid intravenously. The effective rate, change of heart rate and adverse reactions of the two groups were observed. Results The total effective rate was 82.61% in the amiodarone group and 58.70% in the cedilanid group, with a significant difference between the two groups（P〈0.05）. There was statistically significant difference in heart rate of two groups of patients before and after the treatment（P〈0.05）. Compared with the cedilanid group, the efficacy of amiodarone group was more obvious and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant（P〈0.05）. Conclusion Intravenous amiodarone is more effective than cedilanid for rapid paroxysmal artrial fibrillation, with minor side effects. It is worthy of clinical promotion.