中华老年医学杂志
中華老年醫學雜誌
중화노년의학잡지
Chinese Journal of Geriatrics
2014年
5期
460-461
,共2页
心肌梗死%心房颤动%胺碘酮
心肌梗死%心房顫動%胺碘酮
심기경사%심방전동%알전동
Myocardial infarction%Atrial fibrillation%Amiodarone
目的 观察应用胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死(AMI)合并心房颤动(AF)的疗效. 方法 选取2009年1月至2013年6月的AMI合并AF老年患者108例,数字抽签随机分为对照组和治疗组,每组54例.对照组患者采用毛花苷(西地兰)治疗,治疗组患者采用胺碘酮治疗.比较两组患者接受治疗后AF控制率、窦性心律维持率及不良反应情况. 结果 治疗组患者在治疗后6h、12h、24 h和48 h的AF控制率均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(x2值分别为5.173、5.066、4.757、6.684,均P＜0.05).治疗组患者窦性心律维持有效47例高于对照组24例(x2=21.748,P＜0.01);治疗组不良反应率低于对照组(Z=15.621,P＜0.01). 结论 胺碘酮治疗老年人AMI并发AF效果和安全性优于单独使用西地兰.
目的 觀察應用胺碘酮治療急性心肌梗死(AMI)閤併心房顫動(AF)的療效. 方法 選取2009年1月至2013年6月的AMI閤併AF老年患者108例,數字抽籤隨機分為對照組和治療組,每組54例.對照組患者採用毛花苷(西地蘭)治療,治療組患者採用胺碘酮治療.比較兩組患者接受治療後AF控製率、竇性心律維持率及不良反應情況. 結果 治療組患者在治療後6h、12h、24 h和48 h的AF控製率均低于對照組,差異有統計學意義(x2值分彆為5.173、5.066、4.757、6.684,均P＜0.05).治療組患者竇性心律維持有效47例高于對照組24例(x2=21.748,P＜0.01);治療組不良反應率低于對照組(Z=15.621,P＜0.01). 結論 胺碘酮治療老年人AMI併髮AF效果和安全性優于單獨使用西地蘭.
목적 관찰응용알전동치료급성심기경사(AMI)합병심방전동(AF)적료효. 방법 선취2009년1월지2013년6월적AMI합병AF노년환자108례,수자추첨수궤분위대조조화치료조,매조54례.대조조환자채용모화감(서지란)치료,치료조환자채용알전동치료.비교량조환자접수치료후AF공제솔、두성심률유지솔급불량반응정황. 결과 치료조환자재치료후6h、12h、24 h화48 h적AF공제솔균저우대조조,차이유통계학의의(x2치분별위5.173、5.066、4.757、6.684,균P＜0.05).치료조환자두성심률유지유효47례고우대조조24례(x2=21.748,P＜0.01);치료조불량반응솔저우대조조(Z=15.621,P＜0.01). 결론 알전동치료노년인AMI병발AF효과화안전성우우단독사용서지란.
Objective To investigate the the effect of Amiodaroneo on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and atrial fibrillation (AF) in elderly patients,and provide the basis for the treatment.Methods A total of 108 patients with AMI and AF in our hospital from January 2009 to June 2013 were collected and randomly divided into control and experimental groups,each group of 54 cases.The control group was treated with cedilanid and the experimental group were treated with amiodarone.AF control rate,sinus rhythm maintenance rate and adverse reactions of the two groups were analyzed and compared after treatment.Results The AF control rate of experimental group was significantly higher than that of control group in 6 h,12 h,24 h and 48 h after treatment (x2=5.173,5.066,4.757,6.684,P＜0.05).Sinus rhythm maintenance rate of experimental group was increased compared with control group (47 cases vs.24 cases,x2=21.748,P＜0.01).Adverse reaction rates of the experimental group was lower than the control group (x2 =15.621,P＜0.01).Conclusions The treatment of AMI and AF by amiodarone is betterr and safe than cedilanid alone,so it is worth popularizing and applying on clinic.
