实用临床医学
實用臨床醫學
실용림상의학
Practical Clinical Medicine
2014年
9期
15-16,19
,共3页
主动脉夹层%比索洛尔%美托洛尔
主動脈夾層%比索洛爾%美託洛爾
주동맥협층%비색락이%미탁락이
aortic dissection%bisoprolol%metoprolol
目的：探讨主动脉夹层（AD）患者中不同类型β受体阻滞剂对心率、血压的影响及不良反应的发生。方法将72例患者按随机数字表法分为美托洛尔组（37例）和比索洛尔组（35例）。在其他治疗相同的基础上，美托洛尔组给予美托洛尔25～50 mg·d-1，口服，12个月为1个疗程；比索洛尔组给予比索洛尔5～15 mg·d-1，口服，12个月为1个疗程。观察比较2组患者治疗后心率、血压的变化及并发症（缓慢型心律失常、传导阻滞、药源性低血压、心功能不全或心功能不全加重等）的发生情况。结果美托洛尔组的心率、血压达标率分别为89.2%、86.5%；比索洛尔组心率、血压达标率分别为91.4%、83.2%。2组心率、血压达标率比较差异均无统计学意义（均P＞0.05）。2组均无缓慢型心律失常、传导阻滞、药源性低血压、心功能不全或心功能不全加重等并发症的发生。结论比索洛尔组在心率控制方面稍优于美托洛尔，血压控制方面稍差于美托洛尔，但差异均无统计学意义。
目的：探討主動脈夾層（AD）患者中不同類型β受體阻滯劑對心率、血壓的影響及不良反應的髮生。方法將72例患者按隨機數字錶法分為美託洛爾組（37例）和比索洛爾組（35例）。在其他治療相同的基礎上，美託洛爾組給予美託洛爾25～50 mg·d-1，口服，12箇月為1箇療程；比索洛爾組給予比索洛爾5～15 mg·d-1，口服，12箇月為1箇療程。觀察比較2組患者治療後心率、血壓的變化及併髮癥（緩慢型心律失常、傳導阻滯、藥源性低血壓、心功能不全或心功能不全加重等）的髮生情況。結果美託洛爾組的心率、血壓達標率分彆為89.2%、86.5%；比索洛爾組心率、血壓達標率分彆為91.4%、83.2%。2組心率、血壓達標率比較差異均無統計學意義（均P＞0.05）。2組均無緩慢型心律失常、傳導阻滯、藥源性低血壓、心功能不全或心功能不全加重等併髮癥的髮生。結論比索洛爾組在心率控製方麵稍優于美託洛爾，血壓控製方麵稍差于美託洛爾，但差異均無統計學意義。
목적：탐토주동맥협층（AD）환자중불동류형β수체조체제대심솔、혈압적영향급불량반응적발생。방법장72례환자안수궤수자표법분위미탁락이조（37례）화비색락이조（35례）。재기타치료상동적기출상，미탁락이조급여미탁락이25～50 mg·d-1，구복，12개월위1개료정；비색락이조급여비색락이5～15 mg·d-1，구복，12개월위1개료정。관찰비교2조환자치료후심솔、혈압적변화급병발증（완만형심률실상、전도조체、약원성저혈압、심공능불전혹심공능불전가중등）적발생정황。결과미탁락이조적심솔、혈압체표솔분별위89.2%、86.5%；비색락이조심솔、혈압체표솔분별위91.4%、83.2%。2조심솔、혈압체표솔비교차이균무통계학의의（균P＞0.05）。2조균무완만형심률실상、전도조체、약원성저혈압、심공능불전혹심공능불전가중등병발증적발생。결론비색락이조재심솔공제방면초우우미탁락이，혈압공제방면초차우미탁락이，단차이균무통계학의의。
Objective To investigate the influences of different types of β-receptor blockers on heart rate and blood pressure and their side effects in patients with aortic dissection.Methods Seventy-two patients were randomly assigned to receive either metoprolol(25-50 mg·d-1, metoprolol group, n=37) or bisoprolol (5-15 mg·d-1, bisoprolol group, n=35) orally for 12 months. The heart rate, blood pressure and complications (bradyarrhythmia, conduction block, drug-induced hypotension, cardiac insufficiency, aggravation of cardiac insufficiency, etc.) were observed after treatment in both groups. Results The proportions of patients achieving heart rate and blood pressure targets were, respectively, 89.2% and 86.5% in metoprolol group, and 91.4% and 83.2% in bisoprolol group. There were no significant differences between the two groups(P>0.05).No bradyarrhythmia, conduction block, drug-induced hypo-tension, cardiac insufficiency, aggravation of cardiac insufficiency and other complications occurred in both groups. Conclusion The bisoprolol is superior to metoprolol for controlling heart rate, but inferior to metoprolol for controlling blood pressure. However, the differences in efficacies were not significant between bisoprolol and metoprolol.
