摘要
目的分析比较胺碘酮和稳心颗粒治疗不稳定型心绞痛合并室性心律失常的疗效及安全性。方法以2009年1月～2012年5月我院收治的76例不稳定性心绞痛合并室性心律失常患者为研究对象,随机分成观察组和对照组各38例。观察组和对照组均接受常规治疗。观察组在常规治疗基础上温水冲服稳心颗粒,对照组在常规治疗基础上服用盐酸胺碘酮片。观察对比2种药物的疗效及安全性。结果治疗1个疗程后,观察组患者期间心绞痛发生次数、平均24 h内心肌缺血次数少于对照组,且累积硝酸甘油用量明显低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(t值分别为-8.497、-9.791、-7.836,P值均小于0.05);观察组疗程以及随访期间室性早搏、室颤发生率明显低于对照组(χ2值分别为4.145、5.029,P值均小于0.05);观察组患者疗程以及随访期间部分不良反应发生率明显低于对照组(χ2值分别为4.547、3.934,P<0.05)。结论相比于胺碘酮,稳心颗粒可以显著降低患者心绞痛和部分室性心律失常发生次数,疗效优于常用药物胺碘酮,不良反应少,具有更高的安全性,值得在临床实践中加以推广应用。
Objective To investigate the efficacy and security of amiodarone vs steady heart pellet in treating unstable angina associated with ventricular arrhythmias.Methods 76 cases of unstable angina patients associated with ventricular arrhythmias were selected as the study object and randomly divided into an observation group and a control group,each with 38cases.Both groups were given routine treatment.The observation group was treated with steady heart pellet while the control group used amiodarone.Results After a course of treatment,the observation group was less frequent in terms of the times of angina occurrence and myocardial ischemia occurrence within 24h than the control group.The cumulated dose of nitroglycerin of the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group（P〈0.05）.The occurrence rate of premature ventricular contractions and VF of the observation group were significantly lower than the control group（P〈0.05）.The occurrence of adverse reactions in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group（P〈0.05）.Conclusion Compared with amiodarone,steady heart pellet can obviously reduce the occurrence of unstable angina and part of ventricular arrhythmias and has higher security.It is deserved to be promoted widely in the clinical treatment.
出处
《淮海医药》
CAS
2013年第5期399-400,共2页
Journal of Huaihai Medicine
