论文部分内容阅读
目的 对比胺碘酮和普罗帕酮治疗宽QRS型心动过速的疗效。方法 阵发性宽QRS型心动过速发作 2～ 38h ,随机分为胺碘酮组 ( 2 5例 )和普罗帕酮组 ( 2 4例 )。胺碘酮组静脉注射胺碘酮 15 0～ 30 0mg或改为静脉滴注 ,普罗帕酮组静脉注射普罗帕酮 70～ 2 10mg。观察其复律情况、QT间期及药物不良反应。结果 胺碘酮组对VT的复律成功率明显高于普罗帕酮组 (P <0 0 1) ,SVT复律成功率、QT间期的差异无显著意义 (P >0 0 5 ) ,复律时间普罗帕酮短于胺碘酮 ,普罗帕酮组出现 1例严重的药物不良反应。结论 宽QRS型心动过速的复律疗效胺碘酮高于普罗帕酮 ,对不易判断宽QRS型心动过速类型可首选胺碘酮复律
Objective To compare the efficacy of amiodarone and propafenone in the treatment of wide QRS tachycardia. Methods Patients with paroxysmal QRS tachycardia were randomly divided into amiodarone group (25 cases) and propafenone group (24 cases). Amiodarone group intravenous amiodarone 150 ~ 30 0mg or changed to intravenous infusion, propafenone group intravenous propafenone 70 ~ 210mg. Observation of cardioversion, QT interval and adverse drug reactions. Results The success rate of amiodarone in VT was significantly higher than that in propafenone group (P <0.01). The success rate of SVT and QT interval was not significant (P> 0.05) Propafenone time was shorter than amiodarone, propafenone group 1 case of serious adverse drug reactions. Conclusions The recovery effect of amiodarone in wide QRS tachycardia is higher than that of propafenone, and it is not easy to judge the type of wide QRS tachycardia preferred amiodarone cardioversion