乌拉地尔和尼卡地平治疗老年高血压急症的临床分析

Clinical analysis of urapidil and nicardipine in the treatment of elderly hypertensive emergencies

目的分析乌拉地尔和尼卡地平治疗老年高血压急症的临床疗效。方法 64例老年高血压急症患者作为研究对象,随机分为观察组与对照组,每组32例。对照组采用尼卡地平治疗,观察组采用乌拉地尔治疗,比较两组降压效果及安全性。结果两组治疗前、用药后2 h及离院时舒张压、收缩压组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);用药30、60 min时,观察组舒张压、收缩压均明显低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。对照组出现4例不良反应,其中头晕2例、口干面红2例,不良反应发生率为12.5%;观察组出现2例不良反应,均为口干面红,不良反应发生率为6.3%;两组患者不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(χ~2=0.736,P=0.391>0.05)。结论乌拉地尔和尼卡地平对老年高血压急症的降压效果相当,其中乌拉地尔降压速度快,两种药物均有良好安全性。

Objective To analyze the clinical efficacy of urapidil and nicardipine in the treatment of elderly hypertensive emergencies. Methods A total of 64 elderly patients with hypertensive emergencies as study subjects were randomly divided into observation group and control group, with 32 cases in each group. The control group received nicardipine for treatment, and the observation group received urapidil for treatment. Comparison were made on antihypertensive effect and safety between two groups. Results Both groups had no statistically significant difference in diastolic blood pressure and systolic blood pressure before treatment, after 2 h of administration and at discharge （P〉0.05）. After 30 and 60 rain of administration, the observation group had obviously lower diastolic blood pressure and systolic blood pressure than the control group, and their difference was statistically significant （P〈0.05）. The control group had 4 adverse reaction cases, including 2 dizziness cases and 2 dry mouth and redness face cases, with incidence of adverse reactions as 12.5%, while the observation group had 2 adverse reaction cases, and both were dry mouth and redness face cases, with incidence of adverse reactions as 6.3%. Both groups had no statistically significant difference in incidence of adverse reactions （X2=0.736, P=0.391〉0.05）. Conclusion Urapidil and nicardipine shows similar antihypertensive effects on elderly hypertensive emergencies, and urapidil has a faster antihypertensive effect. Both two drugs have good safety.