论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死合并心房颤动的临床疗效及安全性。方法将本院2013年1月至2015年10月收治的100例急性心肌梗死合并心房颤动的老年患者分为观察组和对照组,各50例,观察组采用胺碘酮治疗,对照组采用西地兰治疗。比较两组心房颤动控制情况、不良反应发生情况以及心房颤动转复后1个月窦性心律维持效果。结果观察组治疗后6h、12h、1d、2d的心房颤动控制率、不良反应发生情况、心房颤动转复后1个月窦性心律维持效果均明显优于对照组,两组差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死合并心房颤动的疗效优于西地兰,且不良反应发生率低,安全性高。
Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of amiodarone in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated with atrial fibrillation. Methods 100 elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation admitted from January 2013 to October 2015 in our hospital were divided into observation group and control group, 50 cases in each group. The observation group was treated with amiodarone, while the control group was treated with western Di Lan treatment. Atrial fibrillation was compared between the two groups, the incidence of adverse reactions and the maintenance of sinus rhythm after 1 month of atrial fibrillation. Results The rate of atrial fibrillation and adverse reactions in observation group at 6h, 12h, 1d and 2d after treatment were significantly better than those in control group at 1 month after reversion of atrial fibrillation, and the differences between the two groups were statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusions Amiodarone is superior to cedilanid in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated with atrial fibrillation with low incidence of adverse reactions and high safety.