论文部分内容阅读
目的对照分析胺碘酮与心律平(普罗帕酮)在不同年龄患者中的疗效。方法 240例心律失常患者,根据治疗方法分为胺碘酮组(125例)和心律平组(115例)。根据患者年龄<50岁为年轻组(其中胺碘酮组64例,心律平组56例),>50岁为老年组(其中胺碘酮组61例,心律平组59例),各120例。对照分析两种抗心律失常药物在不同年龄段患者中的疗效。结果年轻组患者中胺碘酮组和心律平组的有效率分别为81%、80%;比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。老年组中分别为93%、76%,比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者中药物相关性不良反应比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论胺碘酮与心律平治疗心律失常的疗效在年轻患者中无差异性,但老年组患者中胺碘酮的疗效明显高于心律平,两组患者中对于药物的不良反应率并不增加。根据患者的年龄选择合适的药物非常必要。
Objective To compare the efficacy of amiodarone and heart rate (propafenone) in patients of different ages. Methods 240 cases of arrhythmia patients were divided into amiodarone group (125 cases) and heart rhythm group (115 cases) according to the treatment method. According to the age of patients <50 years old group (64 cases of amiodarone, 56 cases of rhythm group),> 50 years old group (of which 61 cases of amiodarone, 59 cases of heart rhythm group), 120 cases . The efficacy of two antiarrhythmic drugs in patients of different ages was analyzed. Results The effective rates of amiodarone group and heart rhythm group in young patients were 81% and 80%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). The elderly group were 93%, 76%, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Two groups of patients in the drug-related adverse reactions was no significant difference (P> 0.05). Conclusion The efficacy of amiodarone and heart rhythm in the treatment of arrhythmia was no difference in young patients. However, the efficacy of amiodarone in elderly patients was significantly higher than that of cardiac rhythm. The adverse reactions to drugs in both groups did not increase. It is necessary to choose the right medicine based on the age of the patient.