利多卡因与索他洛尔对急性心肌梗死并室性心律失常的疗效比较

目的观察索他洛尔与利多卡因治疗急性心肌梗死（AMI）并室性心律失常的疗效。方法44例AMI合并严重室性心律失常患者随机分成2组，对其中23例患者给予索他洛尔治疗（2010年1～7月），对21例患者给予利多卡因治疗（2010年5～11月）。结果索他洛尔与利多卡因对AMI合并室性心律失常的疗效、室颤发生率及病死率差异均有统计学意义（P均〈0．05），但索他洛尔与利多卡因两种药物之间对AMI并室性心律失常的疗效、室颤发生率及病死率差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论索他洛尔与利多卡因治疗AMI并室性心律失常疗效显著，能明显降低AMI并室性心律失常患者室颤发生率及病死率，两种药物对AMI并室性心律失常的疗效、室颤发生率及病死率差异无统计学意义，均可推荐作为治疗AMI并室性心律失常的药物。

Efficacy comparison of lidocaine and sotalol in acute myocardial infarction patients with ventricular arrhythmia

Objective To observe the efficacy of lidocaine and sotalol in acute myocardial infarction patients with ventricular arrhythmia. Methods 44 patients were divided into two groups as sotalol group with 23 cases and lidocaine group with 21 cases. The therapeutic effectiveness in both groups was compared. Results There was significant difference in the therapeutic effectiveness of post-AMI ventricular arrhythmia, incidence of ventricular fibrillation as well as mortality in Lidocaine group and Sotalol group （P〈0.05）. There was no significant difference in the therapeutic effectiveness of post-AMI ventricular arrhythmia, incidence of ventrlcular fibrillation as well as mortality between lidocaine group and sotalol group （P〉0.05）. Conclusion There is significant therapeutic effectiveness in post-AMl ventrieular arrhythmia in lidocaine and sotalol. There is no significant difference in the therapeutic effectiveness of post-AMI ventricular arrhythmia between lidocaine and sotalol, all of both as the choice for treating AMI complicated with ventricular arrhythmia.