胺碘酮与普罗帕酮治疗心律失常的临床疗效比较

IF 4.8 2区管理学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Academy of Management Learning & Education Pub Date : 2020-12-29 DOI:10.18282/l-e.v9i3.1562

Charmarke M Ibrahim, Sakarie Mustafe Hidig, Xiangming Ma

{"title":"胺碘酮与普罗帕酮治疗心律失常的临床疗效比较","authors":"Charmarke M Ibrahim, Sakarie Mustafe Hidig, Xiangming Ma","doi":"10.18282/l-e.v9i3.1562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the clinical effects of Amiodarone and Propafenone in the treatment of arrhythmia. Methods: Choose our hospital 100 cases of patients with cardiac arrhythmias. We shall divided into control group (50 cases, Propafenone treatment) and treatment group (50 cases, Amiodarone therapy), to collect the curative effect of two groups of patients, adverse reactions, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, headache, low blood pressure, heart rate slow down) in accordance with the drug treatment and electrocardiogram (ecg) changes before and after the treatment (PR interphase, QT interphase, QRS duration). Results: Control group and the clinical curative effect of treatment group total effectiveness 98%, 86% respectively, the treatment group is significantly higher than the control group. Control group and treatment group the incidence of adverse reactions were 4%, 12%, treatment group was significantly lower than the control group, and two groups of patients duration are improved after treatmentstage PRinterval and QT, QRS.But the treatment group patients with stage PRinterval and QT,such as electrocardiogram QRS duration change was better than control group, which difference hasstatisticalsignificance (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Compared with propafenone, amiodarone in the treatment of arrhythmia patients has better therapeutic effect and higher safety, and improve the clinical symptoms of patients effectively. It is suggested to promote clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":48152,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Learning & Education","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Clinical Effects of Amiodarone and Propafenone in the Arrhythmia’s Treatment\",\"authors\":\"Charmarke M Ibrahim, Sakarie Mustafe Hidig, Xiangming Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.18282/l-e.v9i3.1562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To compare the clinical effects of Amiodarone and Propafenone in the treatment of arrhythmia. Methods: Choose our hospital 100 cases of patients with cardiac arrhythmias. We shall divided into control group (50 cases, Propafenone treatment) and treatment group (50 cases, Amiodarone therapy), to collect the curative effect of two groups of patients, adverse reactions, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, headache, low blood pressure, heart rate slow down) in accordance with the drug treatment and electrocardiogram (ecg) changes before and after the treatment (PR interphase, QT interphase, QRS duration). Results: Control group and the clinical curative effect of treatment group total effectiveness 98%, 86% respectively, the treatment group is significantly higher than the control group. Control group and treatment group the incidence of adverse reactions were 4%, 12%, treatment group was significantly lower than the control group, and two groups of patients duration are improved after treatmentstage PRinterval and QT, QRS.But the treatment group patients with stage PRinterval and QT,such as electrocardiogram QRS duration change was better than control group, which difference hasstatisticalsignificance (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Compared with propafenone, amiodarone in the treatment of arrhythmia patients has better therapeutic effect and higher safety, and improve the clinical symptoms of patients effectively. It is suggested to promote clinical practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academy of Management Learning & Education\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academy of Management Learning & Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18282/l-e.v9i3.1562\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academy of Management Learning & Education","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18282/l-e.v9i3.1562","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较胺碘酮与普罗帕酮治疗心律失常的临床疗效。方法:选取我院100例心律失常患者。我们将两组患者分为对照组(50例，普罗帕酮治疗)和治疗组(50例，胺碘酮治疗)，根据药物治疗情况和治疗前后心电图(PR间期、QT间期、QRS持续时间)的变化，收集两组患者的疗效、不良反应、恶心呕吐、头晕、头痛、低血压、心率减慢)。结果:对照组和治疗组临床疗效总有效率分别为98%、86%，治疗组明显高于对照组。对照组和治疗组不良反应发生率分别为4%、12%，治疗组明显低于对照组，且两组患者治疗后病程PRinterval和QT、QRS均有改善。但治疗组患者的PRinterval期和QT期等心电图QRS持续时间变化均优于对照组，差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论:与普罗帕酮相比，胺碘酮治疗心律失常患者疗效更好，安全性更高，可有效改善患者临床症状。建议推广临床应用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comparing the Clinical Effects of Amiodarone and Propafenone in the Arrhythmia’s Treatment

Objective: To compare the clinical effects of Amiodarone and Propafenone in the treatment of arrhythmia. Methods: Choose our hospital 100 cases of patients with cardiac arrhythmias. We shall divided into control group (50 cases, Propafenone treatment) and treatment group (50 cases, Amiodarone therapy), to collect the curative effect of two groups of patients, adverse reactions, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, headache, low blood pressure, heart rate slow down) in accordance with the drug treatment and electrocardiogram (ecg) changes before and after the treatment (PR interphase, QT interphase, QRS duration). Results: Control group and the clinical curative effect of treatment group total effectiveness 98%, 86% respectively, the treatment group is significantly higher than the control group. Control group and treatment group the incidence of adverse reactions were 4%, 12%, treatment group was significantly lower than the control group, and two groups of patients duration are improved after treatmentstage PRinterval and QT, QRS.But the treatment group patients with stage PRinterval and QT,such as electrocardiogram QRS duration change was better than control group, which difference hasstatisticalsignificance (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Compared with propafenone, amiodarone in the treatment of arrhythmia patients has better therapeutic effect and higher safety, and improve the clinical symptoms of patients effectively. It is suggested to promote clinical practice.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Academy of Management Learning & Education Multiple-

CiteScore

8.20

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： AMLE’s mission is to contribute to management learning and education by publishing theory, empirical research, reviews, critiques, and resources that address the processes of management teaching and the learning that results from it. Additionally, AMLE publishes work that addresses important issues in the institutional environment and administration of business schools and their stakeholders. The journal’s emphasis is on the study of management learning and education in all types of settings—schools and universities as well as businesses and public and non-profit organizations. AMLE is quarterly in March, June, September, and December.