胺碘酮与利多卡因对急性心肌梗死并室性心律失常的疗效比较

Comparison of Curative Effect of Amiodarone and Lidocaine on Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Ventricular Arrhythmias

目的探讨急性心机梗死并室性心律失常患者利用胺碘酮和利多卡因治疗的临床疗效。方法该研究采用回顾性分析的方法随机选取了2014年3月—2015年6月于该院就诊的70例急性心肌梗死并室性心律失常患者,分为观察组与对照组两组各35例。观察组的急性心肌梗死并室性心律失常患者用胺碘酮来治疗,对照组用利多卡因来治疗,记录并比较在治疗后观察组和对照组患者的临床疗效。结果观察组的治疗有效率(94.3%)明显高于对照组的治疗有效率(82.3%),观察组的死亡率(2.9%)明显低于对照组的死亡率(11.4%),观察组的不良反应发生率(8.6%)明显低于对照组的不良反应发生率(22.9%),经比较后差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论急性心肌梗死并室性心律失常患者利用胺碘酮进行治疗的临床疗效优于利用利多卡因进行治疗的临床疗效,胺碘酮治疗的安全性较高,具有临床上推广与应用的价值。

Objective To study the clinical curative effect of amiodarone and lidocaine on patients with acute myocardial infarction and ventricular arrhythmias. Methods 70 cases of patients with acute myocardial infarction and ventricular arrhythmias diagnosed in our hospital from March 2014 to June 2015 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into two groups with 35 cases in each, the observation group were treated with amiodarone, the control group were treated with lidocaine, and the clinical curative effects of the two groups after treatment were recorded and compared. Results The treatment effective rate in the observation group was obviously higher than that in the control group,（94.3% vs 82.3%）, and the death rate in the observation group was obviously lower than that in the control group,（2.9% vs 11.4%）, and the incidence rate of adverse reactions in the observation group was obviously lower than that in the control group,（8.6% vs 22.9%）, and the differences were obvious by comparison with statistical significance, P〈0.05. Conclusion The clinical curative effect of amiodarone in treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction and ventricular arrhythmias is better than that of lidocaine treatment with higher safety, which is worth clinical promotion and application.