胺碘酮与普罗帕酮治疗心律失常临床疗效及安全性的对比评价

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Amiodarone and Propafenone in the Treatment of Arrhythmia

目的探讨心律失常患者应用胺碘酮与普罗帕酮治疗的临床效果,并比较两种药物的用药安全性。方法方便选取该院在2015年9月-2017年9月收治的92例心律失常患者作为该次研究病例,所有患者均知晓该次研究,对患者进行分组,分组方式为计算机表法分成对照组和研究组,各46例,对照组患者应用普罗帕酮治疗,研究组患者采取胺碘酮治疗,对比分析两组患者的临床治疗总有效率,观察两组的不良反应发生情况。结果研究组显效26例,对照组显效19例,研究组治疗总有效率(93.48%)明显高于对照组(73.91%),组间差异有统计学意义(χ^2=6.451 9,P=0.011 0);研究组中1例恶心呕吐,1例便秘,不良反应发生率为4.35%(2/46),对照组中有4例患者发生不良反应,1例恶心呕吐,1例舌唇麻木,1例口干,1例头痛且伴有轻微眩晕感,不良反应发生率为8.70%(4/46),组间比较差异无统计学意义(χ^2=0.713 2,P=0.398 3)。结论心律失常患者治疗过程中,应用胺碘酮的治疗效果高于普罗帕酮,两组药物在安全性方面没有差异,临床治疗中可以根据患者的实际情况选择合理药物进行治疗。

Objective To investigate the clinical effects of amiodarone and propafenone in patients with arrhythmia, and to compare the safety of the two drugs. Methods A total of 92 patients with arrhythmia admitted to our hospital from September 2015 to September 2017 were convenient selected included in this study. All patients were aware of the study and grouped patients. According to the computer table method, the patients were divided into control group(n=46) and research group(n=46). The patients in the control group were treated with propafenone, and the patients in the study group were treated with amiodarone. The total effective rate of clinical treatment was compared between the two groups. The adverse reactions of the two groups were observed. Result The study group was markedly effective in 26 cases, and the control group was markedly effective in 19 cases. The total effective rate of the study group(93.48%) was significantly higher than that of the control group(73.91%), and the difference between the groups was statistically significant(χ^2=6.451 9, P=0.011 0). In the study group, there was 1 case of nausea and vomiting, and 1 case of constipation. The incidence of adverse reactions was 4.35%(2/46). In the control group, there were 4 cases of adverse reactions, 1 case of nausea and vomiting, 1 case of numbness of the tongue and lips, 1 case of mouth dry, and 1 case of headache with mild vertigo. The incidence of adverse reactions was 8.70%(4/46), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups(χ^2=0.713 2, P=0.398 3). Conclusion In the treatment of patients with arrhythmia, the therapeutic effect of amiodarone is higher than that of propafenone. There is no difference in safety between the two groups of drugs. In clinical treatment, reasonable drugs can be selected according to the actual situation of patients.