摘要
目的分析比较普罗帕酮和胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死(AMI)并发心房颤动(AF)的疗效及不良反应。方法选取本院2007年6月～2011年5月收治的AMI并发AF患者93例,随机分为普罗帕酮组47例和胺碘酮组46例,普罗帕酮组患者给予普罗帕酮,胺碘酮组患者给予胺碘酮,记录比较两组患者接受治疗后24h内心房颤动转复效果、转复30d内窦性心律维持率及不良反应情况。结果普罗帕酮组和胺碘酮组患者24h内心房颤动转复率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但胺碘酮组转复时间短于普罗帕酮组(P<0.05),转复后30d内窦性心律维持率胺碘酮组明显高于普罗帕酮组(P<0.05),不良反应发生率胺碘酮组明显低于普罗帕酮组(P<0.05)。结论普罗帕酮和胺碘酮治疗AMI并发AF均有良好效果和较高安全性,胺碘酮效果优于普罗帕酮,值得临床推广应用。
Objective To cOntrast the efficacy and safety between propafenon and amiodarone in treating acute myocardial infection （AMI） with atrial fibrillation （AF）.Methods Ninety-three patients of AIM with AF were divided into 2 groups randomly. The 47 patients in the propafenon group were treated with propafenon while the 46 patients in the amiodarone were treated with amiodarone.Results The cardioversion of AF within 24b of the amiodarone group is sooner than the propafenon group （P〈0.05） while the rate is similar（P〉0.05）, the maintance of the amiodarone group is higher and the rate of side effects is lower than the propafenon group （P〈0.05）.Conclusion Amiodarone is more effective and safer than propafenon in treating AMI with AF.
出处
《当代医学》
2012年第4期71-72,共2页
Contemporary Medicine
关键词
急性心肌梗死
心房颤动
普罗帕酮
胺碘酮
Acute myocardial infection
Atrial fibrillation
Propafenon
Amiodarone
