摘要
目的探讨伊布利特、普罗帕酮及胺碘酮用于心房颤动、心房扑动转复的效果差异。方法 61例房扑及70例房颤患者各随机分为三组,分别应用伊布利特、普罗帕酮及胺碘酮治疗,转复为有效,未转复为无效。结果伊布利特对于房扑的转复率明显高于普罗帕酮(76.92%vs.47.06%,P<0.05),伊布利特对房颤的转复率亦明显高于普罗帕酮(66.67%vs.37.93%,P<0.05);伊布利特对于房扑的转复率与胺碘酮对比有统计学意义(76.92%vs.27.78%,P<0.05),但对于房颤的转复伊布利特与胺碘酮无差别(66.67%vs.47.06%,P>0.05);普罗帕酮与胺碘酮无论对房颤还是对房扑的转复均无差别(P>0.05)。因此,伊布利特转复房扑的成功率高于房颤。结论伊布利特转复房扑既优于普罗帕酮又优于胺碘酮,对转复房颤仅优于普罗帕酮,其对房扑的转复成功率高于房颤。
Objective To explore the difference in cardioversion effects of ibutilide, propafenone and amiodarone for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Methods Sixty-one patients with atrial flutter and 70 patients with atrial fibrillation were randomly divided into three groups each and treated with ibutilide, propafenone and amiodarone respectively. Cardioversion were considered as effective. Results Cardioversion rate of ibutilide for atrial flutter was significantly higher than that of propafenone（76.92% vs. 47.06% ,P〈0.05 ） ; Cardioversion rate of ibutilide for atrial fibrillation was also significantly higher than that of propafenone （66.67% vs. 37.93% ,P〈0.05）; Cardioversion rate of ibutilide for atrial flutter was statistically significant compared with that of amiodarone（76.92% vs. 27.78% ,P〈0.05 ）, but there was no difference in cardioversion rate of atrial fibrillation between ibutilide and amiodarone （66.67% vs. 47.06% , P〉0.05）; Propafenone and amiodarone had no difference in cardioversion effects for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter（P〉0.05 ）. Thus, cardioversion effect of ibutilide for atrial flutter was better than for atrial fibrillation. Conclusion Cardioversion effect of ibutilide for atrial flutter is superior to propafenone and amiodarone, but for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation ibutilide is only better than propafenone. Cardioversion effect of ibutilide for atrial flutter is better than for atrial fibrillation.
出处
《中国现代医生》
2010年第23期109-110,共2页
China Modern Doctor
关键词
房扑
房颤
伊布利特
普罗帕酮
胺碘酮
Atrial flutter
Atrial fibrillation
Ibutilide
Propafenone
Amiodarone
