中国社区医师
中國社區醫師
중국사구의사
Chinese Community Doctors
2015年
7期
19-20
,共2页
胺碘酮%利多卡因%急性心肌梗死%室性心律失常
胺碘酮%利多卡因%急性心肌梗死%室性心律失常
알전동%리다잡인%급성심기경사%실성심률실상
Amiodarone%Lidocaine%Acute myocardial infarction%Ventricular arrhythmias
目的：比较胺碘酮联合利多卡因治疗急性心肌梗死后室性心律失常的临床疗效。方法：2013年5月-2014年5月收治急性心肌梗死后室性心律失常患者84例，分成观察组与对照组，每组42例。观察组采取胺碘酮进行治疗，对照组采取利多卡因进行治疗，比较两组患者治疗后临床疗效及不良反应发生率。结果：观察组的总有效率92.86%，对照组的总有效率54.76%，观察组的总有效率明显高于对照组(P＜0.01)，有统计学意义；两组患者治疗过程中无明显不良反应发生，胺碘酮组有1例患者出现Q-T间期延长，但4～6 d后，未经特殊治疗后恢复。结论：胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死后室性心律失常有效率较利多卡因高，不增加不良反应，短期预后较好，可在临床应用过程中优先选择。
目的：比較胺碘酮聯閤利多卡因治療急性心肌梗死後室性心律失常的臨床療效。方法：2013年5月-2014年5月收治急性心肌梗死後室性心律失常患者84例，分成觀察組與對照組，每組42例。觀察組採取胺碘酮進行治療，對照組採取利多卡因進行治療，比較兩組患者治療後臨床療效及不良反應髮生率。結果：觀察組的總有效率92.86%，對照組的總有效率54.76%，觀察組的總有效率明顯高于對照組(P＜0.01)，有統計學意義；兩組患者治療過程中無明顯不良反應髮生，胺碘酮組有1例患者齣現Q-T間期延長，但4～6 d後，未經特殊治療後恢複。結論：胺碘酮治療急性心肌梗死後室性心律失常有效率較利多卡因高，不增加不良反應，短期預後較好，可在臨床應用過程中優先選擇。
목적：비교알전동연합리다잡인치료급성심기경사후실성심률실상적림상료효。방법：2013년5월-2014년5월수치급성심기경사후실성심률실상환자84례，분성관찰조여대조조，매조42례。관찰조채취알전동진행치료，대조조채취리다잡인진행치료，비교량조환자치료후림상료효급불량반응발생솔。결과：관찰조적총유효솔92.86%，대조조적총유효솔54.76%，관찰조적총유효솔명현고우대조조(P＜0.01)，유통계학의의；량조환자치료과정중무명현불량반응발생，알전동조유1례환자출현Q-T간기연장，단4～6 d후，미경특수치료후회복。결론：알전동치료급성심기경사후실성심률실상유효솔교리다잡인고，불증가불량반응，단기예후교호，가재림상응용과정중우선선택。
Objective:To compare the clinical effect of amiodarone and lidocaine in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction ventricular arrhythmias.Methods:84 patients with after acute myocardial infarction ventricular arrhythmias were selected from May 2013 to May 2014.They were divided into the observation group and the control group with 42 cases in each.The observation group received amiodarone treatment,and the control group received lidocaine for treatment.We compared the two groups of patients after treatment efficacy and incidence of adverse reactions.Results:The total efficiency of the observation group was 92.86%,and the total efficiency of the control group was 54.76%;the total effective rate of the observation group was higher than that of the control group(P<0.01),and there was statistically significant.No obvious adverse reactions of the two groups of patients during treatment,in amiodarone group,1 patient had Q-T interval prolongation,however,after 4~6 days,without special treatment to recover.Conclusion:The efficient of the amiodarone therapy after acute myocardial infarction ventricular arrhythmias was better than the lidocaine,no increase in adverse reactions,short-term prognosis is good,it may be preferred in clinical application process.
