论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨非洛地平与硝苯地平治疗原发性高血压的疗效差异。方法选择我院2009年2月至2011年2月原发性高血压患者80例,以上患者均为门诊或者住院患者,采取随机方法将他们分为观察组和对照组。两组患者试验前两周均停用一切对血压有影响的药物,治疗前检测血压、血糖等。观察组给予非洛地平口服(每次5mg,每天1次,连续服用2周后剂量增加到10mg,每天1次)。对照组口服硝苯地平(每次10mg,每天3次,连续应用2周,如果血压没有达到显效标准,增加剂量到30mg,每天3次)。两组患者均治疗4周。观察两组治疗期间血压改变情况和发生不良反应的情况。结果观察组治疗后总有效率为95.0%,对照组治疗后总有效率为80.%,两组总有效率比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组不良反应发生率比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论非洛地平控制原发性血压效果显著,不良反应发生率低,安全有效,值得借鉴。
Objective To investigate the difference of efficacy between felodipine and nifedipine in treating essential hypertension. Methods Eighty patients with essential hypertension were selected from February 2009 to February 2011 in our hospital. All of the above patients were outpatients or inpatients, and were randomly divided into observation group and control group. Two groups of patients were stopped before the test two weeks of all blood pressure of drugs, before treatment to detect blood pressure, blood sugar and so on. The observation group was given felodipine orally (5mg every time, once a day for 2 weeks after taking the dose increased to 10mg, 1 times a day). The control group was orally given nifedipine (10 mg each time 3 times a day for 2 weeks continuously, if the blood pressure did not reach the standard of effective, increase the dosage to 30 mg 3 times a day). Two groups of patients were treated for 4 weeks. The changes of blood pressure and adverse reactions during the two groups were observed. Results The total effective rate in the observation group was 95.0% after treatment, and the total effective rate in the control group after treatment was 80.%. The total effective rate in the two groups was statistically significant (P <0.05). There was significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of adverse reactions (P <0.05) .Conclusion Felodipine is effective in controlling primary blood pressure, with low incidence of adverse reactions, safe and effective.