CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较静脉推注胺碘酮与西地兰治疗快速阵发性房颤的疗效差异。方法选择92例快速阵发性房颤患者，随机分为胺碘酮组和西地兰组各46例，分别静推胺碘酮和西地兰，观察房颤的转复、心室率变化及不良反应。结果胺碘酮组与西地兰组的治疗有效率分别为82.61%和58.70%，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。两组治疗前后心室率下降均差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。其中胺碘酮组效果更明显，两组比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论静脉应用胺碘酮治疗快速阵发性房颤，疗效优于西地兰，不良反应轻，值得推广。
목적：비교정맥추주알전동여서지란치료쾌속진발성방전적료효차이。방법선택92례쾌속진발성방전환자，수궤분위알전동조화서지란조각46례，분별정추알전동화서지란，관찰방전적전복、심실솔변화급불량반응。결과알전동조여서지란조적치료유효솔분별위82.61%화58.70%，차이유통계학의의（P＜0.05）。량조치료전후심실솔하강균차이유통계학의의（P＜0.05）。기중알전동조효과경명현，량조비교차이유통계학의의（P＜0.05）。결론정맥응용알전동치료쾌속진발성방전，료효우우서지란，불량반응경，치득추엄。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy between amiodarone and cedilanid in the treatment of rapid paroxysmal a-trial fibrillation with intravenous administration. Methods 92 patients with rapid paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were selected and randomly divided into amiodarone group (n=46) and cedilanid group(n=46), and respectively treated with amiodarone and cedilanid intravenously. The effective rate, change of heart rate and adverse reactions of the two groups were observed. Results The total ef-fective rate was 82.61%in the amiodarone group and 58.70%in the cedilanid group, with a significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05). There was statistically significant difference in heart rate of two groups of patients before and after the treatment (P<0.05). Compared with the cedilanid group, the efficacy of amiodarone group was more obvious and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion Intravenous amiodarone is more effective than cedilanid for rapid paroxysmal artrial fibrillation, with minor side effects. It is worthy of clinical promotion.