摘要
目的 比较静脉应用胺碘酮、普罗帕酮、西地兰治疗阵发性房颤的效果。方法70例阵发性房颤患者随机分成胺碘酮组（n=26）、普罗帕酮组（n=20）、西地兰组（n=24），分别静脉推注胺碘酮150～600mg、普罗帕酮70～210mg、西地兰0．2～0．6mg，观察各组房颤的转复情况、复律时间、心室率变化及药物不良反应。结果胺碘酮组转复有效率优于普罗帕酮组和西地兰组（P〈0．05或0，01）。普罗帕酮组和胺碘酮组转复成功时间短于西地兰组（P〈0．01），其中普罗帕酮组最短。每组治疗前、后的平均心室率差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．01），胺碘酮组和普罗帕酮组治疗后的平均心室率优于西地兰组（P〈0．01）。结论胺碘酮转复心律的效果优于普罗帕酮和西地兰。
Objective To compare the effect of amiodarone, propafenone and eedilanid in the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation （PAF）. Methods Seventy PAF patients were randomly divided into amiodarone group （ n = 26）, propafenone group （n = 20）and cedilanid group （,1 = 24）, receiving intravenous injection of amiodarone （150- 600 mg）, propafenone （70- 210 mg）and cedilanid （0.2- 0.6 mg）respectively. The cardioversion, ventricular rate and adverse reaction were recorded in all groups. Results The cardioversion rate in arniodarone group was superior to that in propafenone and cedilanid groups （P 〈 0.01 or 0.05）. The cardioversion time in propafenone and arniodarone group was shorter than that in cedilanid group （P〈0.01）, especially in propafenone group. There was a statistical difference in the average ventricular rate between before and after treatment in three groups （P 〈 0.01）, but the average ventricular rate after treatment in amiodarone and propafenone groups was lower than that in cedilanid group （ P 〈 0.01 ）. Oonclusion Amiodarone is more effective than pmpafenone and cedilanid in the cardioversion of PAF.
出处
《广东医学院学报》
2009年第3期253-255,共3页
Journal of Guangdong Medical College
关键词
心房颤动
胺碘酮
普罗帕酮
西地兰
atrial fibrillation
amiodarone
propafenone
cedilanid
作者简介
苏丹霞（1970-），女，学士，主治医师。
