摘要
目的比较观察普罗帕酮和胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死并发心房颤动临床疗效。方法将我院收治的60例急性心肌梗死并发心房颤动患者随机分为2组,分别给予胺碘酮或普罗帕酮治疗。比较两组的治疗效果及不良反应。结果胺碘酮组心房颤动转复率(93.33%)高于普罗帕酮组(66.67%),P<0.05;胺碘酮组不良反应发生率(6.67%)低于普罗帕酮组(30.00%),χ2=6.667、5.454,P<0.05,差异有统计学意义。结论胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死并发房颤临床效果较普罗帕酮显著,不良反应发生率更低,值得应用于急性心肌梗死并发房颤的临床治疗。
Objective Comparative observation of propafenone and amiodarone in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated with atrial fbrillation. Methods 60 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with atrial fbrillation in our hospital were randomly divided into 2 groups, treated with amiodarone or propafenone respectively. The therapeutic efects and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results The cardioversion rate of atrial fbrillation in amiodarone group （93.33%） was higher than that in propafenone group （66.67%）, P 〈 0.05; The incidence of adverse reactions in amiodarone group （6.67%） was lower than that in propafenone group （30%）, χ2=6.667, 5.454, P 〈 0.05, the diference was statistically signifcant. Conclusion The clinical efect of amiodarone in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated with atrial fibrillation is significantly higher than propafenone, and the incidence of adverse reactions is lower. It is worthy of clinical application in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated with atrial fbrillation.
出处
《中国继续医学教育》
2017年第24期182-184,共3页
China Continuing Medical Education
关键词
急性心肌梗死
心房颤动
普罗帕酮
胺碘酮
acute myocardial infarction
atrial fibrillation
propafenone
amiodarone
