中国医师进修杂志
中國醫師進脩雜誌
중국의사진수잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF POSTGRADUATES OF MEDICINE
2013年
7期
24-27
,共4页
高血压,肺性%西地那非%临床治疗
高血壓,肺性%西地那非%臨床治療
고혈압,폐성%서지나비%림상치료
Hypertension,pulmonary%Sildenafil%Clinical treatment
目的 观察西地那非对肺动脉高压(PH)的临床治疗效果,为PH的临床治疗提供更多的理论依据.方法 选择80例PH患者,按随机数字表法分为常规治疗组和西地那非治疗组,每组40例.观察比较两组治疗前后6 min步行试验距离、Brog呼吸困难评分、肺动脉收缩压(SPAP)、心率、体循环收缩压(cSBP)、体循环舒张压(cDBP)、丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT)、天冬氨酸氨基转移酶(AST)、血尿素氮(BUN)、血肌酐(SCr)及其临床疗效.结果 治疗前常规治疗组和西地那非治疗组6 min步行试验距离分别为(258.62±58.34)、(260.22±54.33)m,Brog呼吸困难评分分别为(3.2±1.1)、(3.3±1.2)分,SPAP分别为(70.66±6.52)、(71.09±6.61) mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),两组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)；治疗后常规治疗组和西地那非治疗组6 min步行试验距离分别为(332.67±63.51)、(411.47 ±75.86)m,均较治疗前显著增加(P＜0.05)；Brog呼吸困难评分分别为(2.6±0.8)、(2.0±0.6)分,SPAP分别为(61.43±5.27)、(47.84 ±5.15) mm Hg,均较治疗前显著减低(P＜0.05)；西地那非治疗组6 min步行试验距离、Brog呼吸困难评分、SPAP改善情况显著优于常规治疗组(P＜0.05).常规治疗组和西地那非治疗组治疗前后心率、cSBP、cDBP、ALT、AST、BUN、SCr比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).西地那非治疗组总有效率为77.5％(31/40),显著优于常规治疗组的57.5％(23/40),差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).西地那非治疗组的不良反应主要为头痛、颜面潮红和消化不良.结论 西地那非治疗PH患者临床疗效显著,不良反应轻微,值得临床推广和应用.
目的 觀察西地那非對肺動脈高壓(PH)的臨床治療效果,為PH的臨床治療提供更多的理論依據.方法 選擇80例PH患者,按隨機數字錶法分為常規治療組和西地那非治療組,每組40例.觀察比較兩組治療前後6 min步行試驗距離、Brog呼吸睏難評分、肺動脈收縮壓(SPAP)、心率、體循環收縮壓(cSBP)、體循環舒張壓(cDBP)、丙氨痠氨基轉移酶(ALT)、天鼕氨痠氨基轉移酶(AST)、血尿素氮(BUN)、血肌酐(SCr)及其臨床療效.結果 治療前常規治療組和西地那非治療組6 min步行試驗距離分彆為(258.62±58.34)、(260.22±54.33)m,Brog呼吸睏難評分分彆為(3.2±1.1)、(3.3±1.2)分,SPAP分彆為(70.66±6.52)、(71.09±6.61) mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),兩組比較差異無統計學意義(P＞0.05)；治療後常規治療組和西地那非治療組6 min步行試驗距離分彆為(332.67±63.51)、(411.47 ±75.86)m,均較治療前顯著增加(P＜0.05)；Brog呼吸睏難評分分彆為(2.6±0.8)、(2.0±0.6)分,SPAP分彆為(61.43±5.27)、(47.84 ±5.15) mm Hg,均較治療前顯著減低(P＜0.05)；西地那非治療組6 min步行試驗距離、Brog呼吸睏難評分、SPAP改善情況顯著優于常規治療組(P＜0.05).常規治療組和西地那非治療組治療前後心率、cSBP、cDBP、ALT、AST、BUN、SCr比較差異均無統計學意義(P＞0.05).西地那非治療組總有效率為77.5％(31/40),顯著優于常規治療組的57.5％(23/40),差異有統計學意義(P＜0.05).西地那非治療組的不良反應主要為頭痛、顏麵潮紅和消化不良.結論 西地那非治療PH患者臨床療效顯著,不良反應輕微,值得臨床推廣和應用.
목적 관찰서지나비대폐동맥고압(PH)적림상치료효과,위PH적림상치료제공경다적이론의거.방법 선택80례PH환자,안수궤수자표법분위상규치료조화서지나비치료조,매조40례.관찰비교량조치료전후6 min보행시험거리、Brog호흡곤난평분、폐동맥수축압(SPAP)、심솔、체순배수축압(cSBP)、체순배서장압(cDBP)、병안산안기전이매(ALT)、천동안산안기전이매(AST)、혈뇨소담(BUN)、혈기항(SCr)급기림상료효.결과 치료전상규치료조화서지나비치료조6 min보행시험거리분별위(258.62±58.34)、(260.22±54.33)m,Brog호흡곤난평분분별위(3.2±1.1)、(3.3±1.2)분,SPAP분별위(70.66±6.52)、(71.09±6.61) mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),량조비교차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05)；치료후상규치료조화서지나비치료조6 min보행시험거리분별위(332.67±63.51)、(411.47 ±75.86)m,균교치료전현저증가(P＜0.05)；Brog호흡곤난평분분별위(2.6±0.8)、(2.0±0.6)분,SPAP분별위(61.43±5.27)、(47.84 ±5.15) mm Hg,균교치료전현저감저(P＜0.05)；서지나비치료조6 min보행시험거리、Brog호흡곤난평분、SPAP개선정황현저우우상규치료조(P＜0.05).상규치료조화서지나비치료조치료전후심솔、cSBP、cDBP、ALT、AST、BUN、SCr비교차이균무통계학의의(P＞0.05).서지나비치료조총유효솔위77.5％(31/40),현저우우상규치료조적57.5％(23/40),차이유통계학의의(P＜0.05).서지나비치료조적불량반응주요위두통、안면조홍화소화불량.결론 서지나비치료PH환자림상료효현저,불량반응경미,치득림상추엄화응용.
Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of sildenafil in treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PH),in order to provide more theory basis for clinical treatment.Methods A total of 80 PH patients was enrolled in this study.All the 80 cases were divided into conventional treatment group and sildenafil treatment group with 40 cases each.The 6-min walk test distance,Brog dyspnea score,pulmonary artery systolic pressure(SPAP),heart rate,circulation systolic blood pressure (cSBP),circulation diastolic blood pressure (cDBP),alanine aminotransferase (ALT),aspartate aminotransferase (AST),blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and serum creatinine (SCr) were recorded before and after treatment.The clinical efficacy was compared between two groups.Results The 6-min walk test distance,Brog dyspnea score and SPAP before treatment in conventional treatment group and sildenafil treatment group were (258.62 ±58.34),(260.22 ± 54.33) m; (3.2 ± 1.1),(3.3 ± 1.2) scores; (70.66 ± 6.52),(71.09 ± 6.61) mm Hg (1 mm Hg =0.133 kPa),and there was no significant difference between two groups (P ＞ 0.05).The 6-min walk test distance was (332.67 ± 63.51),(411.47 ± 75.86) m after treatment in conventional treatment group and sildenalil treatment group,which was increased compared with that before treatment (P ＜ 0.05).Brog dyspnea score and SPAP were (2.6 ± 0.8),(2.0 ± 0.6) scores and (61.43 ± 5.27),(47.84 ± 5.15) mm Hg after treatment in conventional treatment group and sildenafil treatment group,which were decreased compared with those before treatment (P ＜ 0.05).The improvement of the 6-min walk test distance,Brog dyspnea score and SPAP in sildenafil treatment group were better than those in conventional treatment group (P ＜0.05).There was no significant difference in the heart rate,cSBP,cDBP,ALT,AST,BUN,SCr before and after treatment in two groups (P ＞ 0.05).The total effective rate in sildenafil treatment group was higher than that in conventional treatment group [77.5％ (31/40) vs.57.5％ (23/40)],and there was significant difference (P ＜ 0.05).The side effects were main headache,blushing,dyspepsia.Conclusion Sildenafil has more effective clinical efficacy in treating PH patients with accepted side-effect,which is worthy to be popularized in the clinical application.
