摘要
目的 比较静脉注射地尔硫、毛花甙C控制快速心房纤颤心室率的疗效。方法 将58例快速心室率心房纤颤(房颤)病人随机分为地尔硫组(Ⅰ组)30例、毛花甙C组(Ⅱ组)28例,分别给予地尔硫0.3mg/kg、毛花甙C 0.4mg稀释后静脉推注。结果 平均起效时间:Ⅰ组为4.2±1.8min,Ⅱ组为30.1±9.8min;最大效应时间:Ⅰ组10.2±3.4min,Ⅱ组80.6±10.6min;用药后心室率平均下降幅度:Ⅰ组46±18次/min,Ⅱ组30±12次/min(P值均<0.05)。结论 两种药物对控制快速心房纤颤心室率均有效,但地尔硫起效快,心室率下降幅度大。
Objective To compare the therapeutical result obtained from the use of diltiazen and Cedilanide in control of rapid ventricular rate of atrial fibrillation. Methods By dividing, in a random way, 58 patients with rapid ventricular rate of atrial fibrillation into a diltiazen group composed of 30 patients( Group I ) and a Cedilanide group of 28 patients(Group II ).Tiltiazem,0.3mg/kg and Cedilanide 0.4mg,after being diluted,were renpectively given to the patients from the two groups by intravenous injection. Results The average time of drug efect beginning was 4.2+1.8 min,in group I and 30.1 ± 9.8 min,in Group II ;The maximum effective time was 10.2 ± 3. 4 min in Group I and 80.6 ± 10.6 min,in Group H ;The average range of a drop in the ventricular rate after the drug use was 46 ± 18 times per minute in Group I and 30 ± 12 times per minute in Group H (P < 0.05). Conclusion Both the two drugs are effective in the control of the rapid ventricular rate of atrial fibrillation, but diltiazem has a more rapid onset of action,and produces a more marked drop in the venticular rate atrial fibrillation than cedi-lanide does.
出处
《中国基层医药》
CAS
2000年第3期206-207,共2页
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
