心血管病防治知识（下半月）
心血管病防治知識（下半月）
심혈관병방치지식（하반월）
Xinxueguanbing Fangzhi Zhishi
2015年
10期
55-57
,共3页
乌头碱中毒%室性心律失常%胺碘酮%利多卡因%不良反应
烏頭堿中毒%室性心律失常%胺碘酮%利多卡因%不良反應
오두감중독%실성심률실상%알전동%리다잡인%불량반응
Aconite poisoning%Ventricular arrhythmia%Amiodarone%Lidocaine%Adverse reaction
目的：通过临床对比研究，观察胺碘酮和利多卡因治疗乌头碱中毒所致室性心律失常患者的临床疗效。方法研究对象选自2012年1月至2015年1月期间来我院接受治疗的乌头碱中毒所致室性心律失常患者，共68例。将68例患者采用单双号法平均分成胺碘酮组和利多卡因组，分别予以两组患者胺碘酮和利多卡因治疗。结果经治疗发现胺碘酮组患者相关临床症状的缓解时间明显早于利多卡因组患者（P﹤0.05），室性心率失常逆转时间为（38.9±6.2）min，室性心率失常消失时间为（91.6±11.2）min，与利多卡因组患者的（49.1±6.5）min和（113.5±15.4）min比较存在的差异具有统计学意义（P﹤0.05），两组患者均未发生严重药物不良反应。结论与利多卡因比较，胺碘酮治疗乌头碱中毒所致室性心律失常的临床效果更为显著，安全性高，可最为临床治疗乌头碱中毒所致室性心律失常患者的理想药物。
目的：通過臨床對比研究，觀察胺碘酮和利多卡因治療烏頭堿中毒所緻室性心律失常患者的臨床療效。方法研究對象選自2012年1月至2015年1月期間來我院接受治療的烏頭堿中毒所緻室性心律失常患者，共68例。將68例患者採用單雙號法平均分成胺碘酮組和利多卡因組，分彆予以兩組患者胺碘酮和利多卡因治療。結果經治療髮現胺碘酮組患者相關臨床癥狀的緩解時間明顯早于利多卡因組患者（P﹤0.05），室性心率失常逆轉時間為（38.9±6.2）min，室性心率失常消失時間為（91.6±11.2）min，與利多卡因組患者的（49.1±6.5）min和（113.5±15.4）min比較存在的差異具有統計學意義（P﹤0.05），兩組患者均未髮生嚴重藥物不良反應。結論與利多卡因比較，胺碘酮治療烏頭堿中毒所緻室性心律失常的臨床效果更為顯著，安全性高，可最為臨床治療烏頭堿中毒所緻室性心律失常患者的理想藥物。
목적：통과림상대비연구，관찰알전동화리다잡인치료오두감중독소치실성심률실상환자적림상료효。방법연구대상선자2012년1월지2015년1월기간래아원접수치료적오두감중독소치실성심률실상환자，공68례。장68례환자채용단쌍호법평균분성알전동조화리다잡인조，분별여이량조환자알전동화리다잡인치료。결과경치료발현알전동조환자상관림상증상적완해시간명현조우리다잡인조환자（P﹤0.05），실성심솔실상역전시간위（38.9±6.2）min，실성심솔실상소실시간위（91.6±11.2）min，여리다잡인조환자적（49.1±6.5）min화（113.5±15.4）min비교존재적차이구유통계학의의（P﹤0.05），량조환자균미발생엄중약물불량반응。결론여리다잡인비교，알전동치료오두감중독소치실성심률실상적림상효과경위현저，안전성고，가최위림상치료오두감중독소치실성심률실상환자적이상약물。
Objective To observe the clinical effects of amiodarone and lidocaine in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmia caused by aconite poisoning through a clinical comparative study. Methods A total of 68 patients with ventricular arrhythmia caused by aconite poisoning treated in this hospital from January 2012 to January 2015 were selected as study subjects and were equally divided into amiodarone group and lidocaine group according to odd and even numbers. The patients in these two groups were treated with amiodarone and lidocaine, respectively. Results Time to relief of related clinical symptoms in amiodarone group was significantly shorter than that in lidocaine group (P﹤0.05). In the amiodarone group, time to reversion of ventricular arrhythmia was (38.9 ±6.2)min and time to disappearance of ventricular arrhythmia was(91.6±11.2)min, while in the lidocaine group, time to reversion of ventricular arrhythmia and time to disappearance of ventricular arrhythmia were (49.1±6.5)min and (113.5±15.4)min, respectively;the difference between the two groups had statistical significance (P﹤0.05). No patient experienced severe adverse drug reactions. Conclusion Compared with lidocaine, amiodarone is more effective and safer in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmia caused by aconite poisoning and can be applied as an ideal drug for this disease in clinical practice.
