心力衰竭治疗药物托拉塞米与呋塞米两种药物临床疗效对比

Clinical Efficacy Comparison Torasemide and Furosemide in the Treatment of Heart Failure

目的:对比托拉塞米与呋塞米两种药物治疗心力衰竭患者的效果差异。方法:结合90例心力衰竭患者入院时间先后将其分为两组,征得其同意后分别给予常规治疗基础上的托拉塞米治疗(观察组45例)与呋塞米治疗(对照组45例),对比两组患者治疗效果、不良反应差异,同时评估患者治疗前后心功能等级及心功能指标差异。结果:观察组患者治疗有效率(91.1%)与对照组患者(73.3%)相比存在显著性差异且明显高于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组患者治疗后心功能II级患者比例(71.1%)明显高于对照组(62.2%),而心功能IV级患者比例(4.4%)则明显低于对照组(11.1%),对比均存在显著性差异(P<0.05)。观察组患者治疗后左心射血分数、6min步行试验距离明显高于对照组而均存在显著性差异(P<0.05)。观察组患者治疗期间不良反应发生率(22.2%)与对照组患者(24.4%)相比无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:托拉塞米相较于呋塞米在心力衰竭患者治疗中的应用效果更好,对患者心功能等级、指标的改善程度更高,值得临床推广。

Objective： To compare the effect of torasemide and furosemide two drugs in the treatment of patients with heart failure. Methods： 90 cases of heart failure patients were divided into two groups according to admission time, who were given torasemide treatment on the basis of conventional treatment （observation group 45 cases） and furosemide treatment （control group, 45 cases） and then comapre treatment effect and adverse effectas well as evaluate heart function level and heart function index difference before and after treatment. Results： The effective rate of the observation group （91.1%） was significantly higher than that of the control group （73.3%） （P〈0.05）. After treatment, heart function class II ratio in the observation group （71.1%） was significantly higher than the control group （62.2%） and heart function in patients with grade IV ratio （4.4 % ） was significantly lower than the control group （11.1 % ） （P 〈0.05）. After treatment, the left ventricular ejection fraction and the distance of 6rain walking test in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group （P〈0.05） The incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group （22.2%） was not significantly different from that of the control group （P〈0.05）. Conclusion： Compared with furosemide, torasemide has better application effect in the treatment of heart failure patients, the degree of improvement of cardiac function in patients with grade index is higher, which is worthy of clinical promotion.