CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较胺碘酮和毛花甙C（西地兰）静脉用药治疗院前急救中快速心房纤颤的疗效。方法：随机抽取2010年1月-2011年1月上海市医疗急救中心随车急救中用毛花甙C治疗心房纤颤的110例病例为Ⅰ组；2011年2月-2013年2月用胺碘酮治疗心房纤颤的110例病例为Ⅱ组。Ⅰ组静脉注射毛花甙C 0.4～0.8 mg。Ⅱ组静脉注射胺碘酮150 mg,如未转复为窦性心律者,重复给予75～150 mg，后改为静脉滴注150～450 mg。结果：胺碘酮组治疗效果优于毛花甙C组，两组差异有统计学意义。结论：静脉注射胺碘酮治疗心房纤颤的作用迅速、安全,其疗效优于毛花甙C。
목적：비교알전동화모화대C（서지란）정맥용약치료원전급구중쾌속심방섬전적료효。방법：수궤추취2010년1월-2011년1월상해시의료급구중심수차급구중용모화대C치료심방섬전적110례병례위Ⅰ조；2011년2월-2013년2월용알전동치료심방섬전적110례병례위Ⅱ조。Ⅰ조정맥주사모화대C 0.4～0.8 mg。Ⅱ조정맥주사알전동150 mg,여미전복위두성심률자,중복급여75～150 mg，후개위정맥적주150～450 mg。결과：알전동조치료효과우우모화대C조，량조차이유통계학의의。결론：정맥주사알전동치료심방섬전적작용신속、안전,기료효우우모화대C。
Objective:To compare the efifcacy of amiodarone and lanatoside C(cedilanid) in the intravenous treatment of rapid atrial fibrillation at the pre-hospital emergency center. Methods: One hundred and ten cases of patients with atrial ifbrillation treated with lanatoside C were randomly selected as group I in Shanghai Medical Emergency Center ambulance during Jan. 2010-Jan. 2011 while another 110 cases treated with amiodarone as group II during Feb. 2011-Feb. 2013. 0.4~0.8 mg of lanatoside C was intravenously given in group I and 150 mg of amiodarone in group II, and 75~150 mg of amiodarone were repeatedly given and then 150~450 mg of amiodarone if the patients did not convert to sinus rhythm. Results:The efifcacy of amiodarone was better than that of lanatoside C, and the difference was statistically signiifcant. Conclusion:Amiodarone in the treatment of atrial ifbrillation possesses quick action and good safety and its efifcacy is much better than lanatoside C. So it is recommended as the ifrst choice for the treatment of fast atrial ifbrillation in pre-hospital emergency.