对比西地兰与胺碘酮治疗快速型心房纤颤伴急性左心衰的临床效果

To compare the clinical effect of sideran and amiodarone in the treatment of rapid atrial fibrillation with acute left heart failure

目的探究快速型心房纤颤伴急性左心衰采用西地兰与胺碘酮的治疗效果对比。方法选取本院2015年7月至2017年8月收治的86例快速心房纤颤伴急性左心衰患者,并按照双盲法将其分为两组,对照组予以西地兰治疗,观察组予以胺碘酮治疗,并对两组患者的治疗效果、心室率变化以及心功能改善情况进行比较。结果观察组患者治疗后总有效率93.02%,对照组患者治疗后总有效率74.42%,对照组患者总有效率比观察组低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组患者治疗前心室率的对比,差异无统计学意义;治疗1 d后心室率明显低于治疗前,且观察组患者治疗1 d后心室率比对照组低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组患者治疗后心功能改善总有效率93.02%;对照组患者治疗后心功能改善总有效率76.74%,对照组患者心功能改善总有效率比观察组低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与西地兰相比,快速型心房纤颤伴急性左心衰患者应用胺碘酮的治疗效果更高,可使患者心室率与心功能显著改善。

Objective To investigate the efficacy of sidilan and amiodarone in the treatment of rapid atrial fibrillation with acute left heart failure. Methods Select our college in July 2015 to August 2017 were 86 cases of patients with acute left heart failure with rapid atrial fibrillation (af), and it can be divided into two groups according to the double blind method, the control to the west to treatment, observation group with amiodarone treatment, and treatment effect of two groups of patients, comparing ventricular rate change and improve cardiac function. Results The total effective rate of the observation group was 93.02% after treatment, and that of the control group was 74.42% after treatment. The total effective rate of the control group was lower than that of the observation group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in ventricular rate between the two groups before treatment. After 1 day of treatment, the ventricular rate was significantly lower than that before treatment, and the observation group had lower ventricular rate after 1 day of treatment than the control group, with statistically significant difference (P<0.05). The total effective rate of cardiac function improvement after treatment was 93.02% in the observation group. The total effective rate of improved cardiac function in the control group was 76.74% after treatment, and the total effective rate of improved cardiac function in the control group was lower than that in the observation group, with statistically significant difference (P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with cedilan, amiodarone is more effective in the treatment of patients with rapid atrial fibrillation with acute left heart failure, and can significantly improve ventricular rate and cardiac function.