摘要
目的对比老年持续性心房颤动(AF)的患者,控制房颤的心室率(频率控制)与恢复并维持窦性心律(节律控制)两种方法的治疗效果。方法频率控制组使用阿替洛尔和地高辛控制AF的心室率;节律控制组用胺碘酮或直流电转复并用胺碘酮维持窦性心律,比较3年后两组患者的病死率、致残率、生活质量及住院率。结果两组病人的病死率、生活质量相比较无统计学意义(P>0.05),频率控制组的致残率、住院率低于节律控制组(P<0.05)。结论控制AF心室率应列为持续性AF的首选治疗措施。
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of the rate of control with the rhythm control and the rhythm of control in old patients with atrial fibrillation. Method The group of rate control was by attended and digedin to control the ventricular rate of atrial fibrillation;The group of rhythm of control was by electrical cardioversion or amiodarone to maintain the sinus normal rhythm.Two groups were compared in the combined and point of 3-year.Mortality,disability,inhospital and living quality. Results Two groups were no significance in mortality and living quality (P>0.05).Compared rhythm control group,the group of rate control was lower in incidence of disability,inhospital (P<0.05). Conclusion Rate control in atrial fibrillation is on the first thoughts to manage the problems of atrial fibrillation.
出处
《医师进修杂志》
2005年第7期29-30,共2页
Journal of Postgraduates of Medicine