中外医疗
中外醫療
중외의료
China Foreign Medical Treatment
2015年
24期
52-53
,共2页
慢性心力衰竭%卡维地洛%美托洛尔
慢性心力衰竭%卡維地洛%美託洛爾
만성심력쇠갈%잡유지락%미탁락이
Chronic heart failure%Carvedilol%Metoprolol
目的:探讨和分析慢性充血性心力衰竭的治疗方法及效果。方法整群选取该院自2013年10月-2015年3月收治慢性心力衰竭患者96例,按随机原则分成两组各48例,观察组使用卡维地洛进行治疗,对照组使用美托洛尔治疗,然后对比该两组患者治疗前后效果及安全性。结果观察组患者的心功能改善总有效率为95.8%,明显高于对照组(81.3%),该两组治疗有效率对比,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组和对照组患者出现间竭性Ⅱ度房室传导阻滞、空腹血糖升高及慢性心律失常的发生率分别为6.25%(3/48)、8.33%(4/48),该两组患者的不良反应发生率对比,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.852,P>0.05)。结论对于慢性充血性心力衰竭患者,使用卡维地洛进行治疗,其效果要明显优于美托洛尔,并且不良反应较少,所以值得临床推广。
目的:探討和分析慢性充血性心力衰竭的治療方法及效果。方法整群選取該院自2013年10月-2015年3月收治慢性心力衰竭患者96例,按隨機原則分成兩組各48例,觀察組使用卡維地洛進行治療,對照組使用美託洛爾治療,然後對比該兩組患者治療前後效果及安全性。結果觀察組患者的心功能改善總有效率為95.8%,明顯高于對照組(81.3%),該兩組治療有效率對比,差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)。觀察組和對照組患者齣現間竭性Ⅱ度房室傳導阻滯、空腹血糖升高及慢性心律失常的髮生率分彆為6.25%(3/48)、8.33%(4/48),該兩組患者的不良反應髮生率對比,差異無統計學意義(χ2=0.852,P>0.05)。結論對于慢性充血性心力衰竭患者,使用卡維地洛進行治療,其效果要明顯優于美託洛爾,併且不良反應較少,所以值得臨床推廣。
목적:탐토화분석만성충혈성심력쇠갈적치료방법급효과。방법정군선취해원자2013년10월-2015년3월수치만성심력쇠갈환자96례,안수궤원칙분성량조각48례,관찰조사용잡유지락진행치료,대조조사용미탁락이치료,연후대비해량조환자치료전후효과급안전성。결과관찰조환자적심공능개선총유효솔위95.8%,명현고우대조조(81.3%),해량조치료유효솔대비,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。관찰조화대조조환자출현간갈성Ⅱ도방실전도조체、공복혈당승고급만성심률실상적발생솔분별위6.25%(3/48)、8.33%(4/48),해량조환자적불량반응발생솔대비,차이무통계학의의(χ2=0.852,P>0.05)。결론대우만성충혈성심력쇠갈환자,사용잡유지락진행치료,기효과요명현우우미탁락이,병차불량반응교소,소이치득림상추엄。
Objective To discuss the treatment of patients with chronic congestive heart failure and its effect. Methods 96 patients suffering from chronic congestive heart failure admitted to our hospital between October 2013 and March 2015 were randomized into observation group in which the 48 patients were treated with carvedilol, and control group in which the 48 patients were treat-ed with metoprolol. The therapeutic effect and safety were compared between the two groups. Results Total improved efficiency of the heart function was higher in the observation group than in the control group (95.8%vs 81.3%), and the difference was statisti-cally significant(P<0.05). The rate of intermittent degreeIIatrioventricular block, elevated fasting blood glucose and chronic car-diac arrhythmia was 6.25%(3/48) in the observation group and 8.33%(4/48)in the control group, and the difference was not sta-tistically significant (χ2=0.852,P﹥0.05). Conclusion Compared with metoprolol, carvedilol in the treatment of patients with chronic congestive heart failure can provide better effects but less complication, therefore its worthy of clinical promotion.