摘要
目的 :对比观察胺碘酮和心律平治疗阵发性心房颤动的疗效与安全性。方法 :5 6例频繁发作的阵发性房颤患者随机分为胺碘酮组 (2 8例 )和心律平组 (2 8例 )。胺碘酮用法为 :0 .2g,每天 3次 ,7～1 0d;0 .2g,每天 2次 ,1wk ;维持量 0 .2g,每天 1次或 0 .2g,每 2天 1次。心律平 :0 .1 5g,每天 3次或0 .1 5g,每天 4次 ,1 4d ;维持量 0 .1g,每天 3次。服用负荷量期间每周就诊 1次 ,维持量期间每月就诊1次。结果 :随访 6mon ,胺碘酮组和心律平组分别有 4例和 2例因出现难以耐受的副作用而终止治疗 ,无危及生命的副作用。胺碘酮组总有效率82 .1 % ,心律平组为 5 7.1 % (P <0 .0 5 )。结论 :胺碘酮对阵发性心房颤动的疗效高于心律平 。
AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of amiodarone and propafenone in the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibr illation (AF). METHODS: The population consisted of 56 consecut ive patients (age 39-72 years, 37 male) with recurrent symptomatic atrial fibri llation. Those patients were randomized to amiodarone group (n=2 8) or propafenone group (n=28). Usage of amiodarone: 0.2 tid within seven to ten days, 0.2 bid within seven days. The maintain dose was 0.2 qd or 0.2 qod. Usage of propafenone: 0.15 tid or qid within two weeks. The maintain dose was 0.1 tid. Follow-up evaluations were conducted at 1, 2 and 3 weeks, and 4-week intervals thereafter. RESULTS: Duration of following up was 6 months. Four patients treated with amiodarone, a nd two with propafenone discontinued therapy due to adverse effects. There was n o life-threatening adverse effects .The whole effective rate was 82.1 % in a miodarone group and 57.1 % in propafenone group (P< 0.05 ). CONCLUSION: Amiodarone was more effective than propafenone in treatment of paroxysmal AF, though its long-term efficacy was limited by noncar diac adverse side effects.
出处
《中国临床药理学与治疗学》
CAS
CSCD
2003年第3期292-294,共3页
Chinese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
