CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较卡托普利与雷米普利治疗稳定性冠心病的临床疗效与安全性。方法：42例稳定性冠心病患者采用随机数字表方法随机分为卡托普利组（21例），雷米普利组（21例），治疗6个月，观察综合心血管事件发生率、肱动脉内皮依赖性血管舒张功能和C反应蛋白。结果：卡托普利组综合心血管事件8例（38%），雷米普利组组5例（24%），两组比较差异无统计意义（p=0.059），改善内皮依赖性血管舒张功能、降低C反应蛋白方面雷米普利优于卡托普利（p＞0.05）。结论：雷米普利治疗稳定性冠心病的疗效可能优于卡托普利，但仍需大样本随机对照研究进一步证实。
목적：비교잡탁보리여뢰미보리치료은정성관심병적림상료효여안전성。방법：42례은정성관심병환자채용수궤수자표방법수궤분위잡탁보리조（21례），뢰미보리조（21례），치료6개월，관찰종합심혈관사건발생솔、굉동맥내피의뢰성혈관서장공능화C반응단백。결과：잡탁보리조종합심혈관사건8례（38%），뢰미보리조조5례（24%），량조비교차이무통계의의（p=0.059），개선내피의뢰성혈관서장공능、강저C반응단백방면뢰미보리우우잡탁보리（p＞0.05）。결론：뢰미보리치료은정성관심병적료효가능우우잡탁보리，단잉수대양본수궤대조연구진일보증실。
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy and safety of captopril and ramipril for stable coronary heart disease. Methods:42 cases of patients with stable coronary artery disease, according to the random number table Method:were randomly divided into thecaptopril group (21 cases), ramipril group (21 cases), treatment for 6 months, the primary outcome was total cardiovascular events, and the secondary outcome was FDM and C reaction protein. Results:8 cases ofcaptopril group total cardiovascular events (38%), ramipril group 5 cases (24%), the difference between the two groups had no statistical significance (p=0.059), For FDM and C reaction protein, ramipril were better than captopril (P>0.05). Conclusion:The effect of ramipril for stable coronary heart disease may be better thancaptopril, but still need large randomized controlled trials to confirm.