冠心病慢性心力衰竭患者应用不同剂量阿托伐他汀与瑞舒伐他汀的临床疗效对比及其安全性分析

Clinical Comparative Study and Securitt Analysis on Different Doses of Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin for Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

对冠心病慢性心力衰竭患者应用不同剂量阿托伐他汀与瑞舒伐他汀的临床疗效对比及其安全性进行分析。从该院2015年1月至2017年1月期间收治的冠心病慢性心力衰竭患者中抽取200例,随机、均等分为阿托伐他汀常规剂量组(阿托伐他汀常规剂量治疗)、瑞舒伐他汀常规剂量组(瑞舒伐他汀常规剂量治疗)、阿托伐他汀负荷剂量组(阿托伐他汀负荷剂量治疗)、瑞舒伐他汀负荷剂量组(瑞舒伐他汀负荷剂量治疗)。对比治疗6个月后不同组别血脂指标、临床效果与不良反应情况。治疗前4组TG、TC、LDL-C水平差异不明显(P>0.05),治疗后均有所降低(P<0.05),但瑞舒伐他汀常规剂量组明显比阿托伐他汀常规剂量组、瑞舒伐他汀负荷剂量组低(P<0.05);阿托伐他汀负荷剂量组明显比阿托伐他汀常规剂量组、瑞舒伐他汀负荷剂量组低(P<0.05);瑞舒伐他汀常规剂量组、阿托伐他汀负荷剂量组差异不明显(P>0.05),阿托伐他汀常规剂量组、瑞舒伐他汀负荷剂量组差异不明显(P>0.05)。治疗前4组HDL-C水平差异不明显(P>0.05),治疗后均有所升高(P<0.05),但瑞舒伐他汀常规剂量组明显比阿托伐他汀常规剂量组、瑞舒伐他汀负荷剂量组高(P<0.05),阿托伐他汀负荷剂量组明显比阿托伐他汀常规剂量组、瑞舒伐他汀负荷剂量组高(P<0.05);瑞舒伐他汀常规剂量组、阿托伐他汀负荷剂量组差异不明显(P>0.05),阿托伐他汀常规剂量组、瑞舒伐他汀负荷剂量组差异不明显(P>0.05)。瑞舒伐他汀常规剂量组总有效率明显比阿托伐他汀常规剂量组、瑞舒伐他汀负荷剂量组高(P<0.05);阿托伐他汀负荷剂量组总有效率明显比阿托伐他汀常规剂量组、瑞舒伐他汀负荷剂量组高(P<0.05);瑞舒伐他汀常规剂量组与阿托伐他汀负荷剂量组差异不明显(P>0.05)。瑞舒伐他汀常规剂量组不良反应出现率明显比阿托伐他汀常规剂量组、阿托伐他汀负荷剂量组、瑞舒伐他汀负荷剂量组低(P<0.05)。瑞舒伐他汀常规剂量与阿托伐他汀负荷剂量在改善患者血脂指标上能够发挥同等作用,瑞舒伐他汀常规剂量可提升临床效果,并且具有较高的安全性。

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of different doses of Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin in patients with chronic heart failure of coronary heart disease, a total of 200 patients were randomly divided into routine dose of Atorvastatin (conventional dose of Atorvastatin）, Ruishu the normal dose of Statins of Atorvastatin (Rosuvastatin conventional dose treatment), Atorvastatin loading dose group （Atorvastatin loading dose therapy）, Rosuvastatin loading dose group （Rosuvastatin loading dose therapy）. After 6 months of treatment, different groups of blood lipid indicators, clinical effects and adverse reactions were compared. The levels of TG,TC and LDL-C in the four groups before treatment were not significantly different （P 〉 0.05), but decreased after treatment （P 〈 0.05) ,and the conventional dose of Rosuvastatin was significantly higher than that of Atorvastatin group and Rosuvastatin loading dose group (P 〈 0.05). Atorvastatin loading dose group was significantly lower than the conventional dose of Atorvastatin dose group and Rosuvastatin loading dose group (P 〈 0.05). There was no significant difference between the conventional dose of Statins and Atorvastatin loading dose group (P 〉 0.05). Norvastvastatin conventional dose group and Rosuvastatin loading dose group （P 〉 0.05) HDL-C levels were not significantly different (P 〉 0.05) before treatment, after treatment were increased （P 〈 0.05), but Rosuvastatin conventional dose group was significantly higher than those of Atorvastatin conventional dose group, Rosuvastatin loading dose group （P 〈 0.05). Atorvastatin loading dose group was significantly higher than Atorvastatin normal dose group and Rosuvastatin loading dose group （P 〈 0.05）, Rosuvastatin conventional dose group, Atorvastatin no significant difference in loading dose group （P 〉 0.05）. Compared with the normal dose of Rosuvastatin and Rosuvastatin loading dose group, the total effec-tive rate of Rosuvastatin conventional dose group was significantly higher than that of Rosuvastatin loading dose group （P 〈 0.05）. The total effective rate of Atorvastatin loading dose group was significantly higher than that of atorvastatin normal dose group and Rosuvastatin loading dose group (P 〈 0.05). There was no significant difference in Statin load between the two groups (P 〉 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the conventional dose of Rosuvastatin group was significantly higher than that of the normal dose group of Atorvastatin, Atorvastatin loading dose group, Rosuvastatin loading dose group (P 〈 0.05). The conventional dose of Rosuvastatin and Atorvastatin loading dose can play an equal role in improving the lipid profile of patients. The conventional dose of Rosuvastatin can improve the clinical effect and has higher safety.