CAJ | 학술논문

目的:观察胺碘酮与西地兰在控制快速心房颤动心室率上的临床疗效.方法:将70例快速房颤患者随机分组,每组35例,分别行胺碘酮和西地兰治疗.结果:胺碘酮组的房颤转复成功率(74.3%)显著高于西地兰组(48.6%),转复成功时间上,胺碘酮组(6.3±1.4h)明显短于西地兰组(9.7±3.5h),差异具有统计意义.结论:静脉推注胺碘酮在控制快速房颤心室率的临床疗效上显著优于西地兰.
목적:관찰알전동여서지란재공제쾌속심방전동심실솔상적림상료효.방법:장70례쾌속방전환자수궤분조,매조35례,분별행알전동화서지란치료.결과:알전동조적방전전복성공솔(74.3%)현저고우서지란조(48.6%),전복성공시간상,알전동조(6.3±1.4h)명현단우서지란조(9.7±3.5h),차이구유통계의의.결론:정맥추주알전동재공제쾌속방전심실솔적림상료효상현저우우서지란.
Objective: Observe clinical effect of Amiodarone and Cedilanid in the patients with rapid atrial fibrilation.Methods: 70 patients with rapid atrial fibrilation patients were randomly divided into two groups,35 cases in each group, amiodarone and Cedilanid was used respectively in two groups.Result: atrial fibrilation cardioversion success rate of Amiodarone group (74.3%) was significantly higher than Cedilanid group (48.6%), the cardioversion successful time on amiodarone group (6.3± 1.4h) was significantly shorter than Cedilanid group(9.7 ± 3.5h), the difference was statisticaly significant. Conclusion: Intravenous bolus amiodarone in clinical efficacy to control rapid ventricular rate of AF significantly better than Cedilanid. Conclusion: Intravenous bolus amiodarone in clinical efficacy to control rapid ventricular rate of atrial fibrilation significantly better than Cedilanid.