【摘要】 目的对比观察普罗帕酮、胺碘酮治疗和预防阵发性心房颤动(PAF)的疗效和安全性。方法对80例阵发性心房颤动患者随机应用普罗帕酮(32例)、胺碘酮(28例)和安慰剂(20例)治疗及预防复发,治疗不少于3个月。结果三组服药后48h内转复率分别为72.7%、42.1%、23.1%,普罗帕酮组显著高于胺碘酮组和安慰剂组(P<0.05和P<0.01);随访(21.6±8.0)个月,总有效率分别为62.5%、71.4%、15.0%,两药物治疗组疗效差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),均明显优于安慰剂组(P<0.01);在随访期限>12个月的病例中,胺碘酮组有效率显著高于普罗帕酮组(P<0.05),表明胺碘酮预防阵发性心房颤动复发的远期疗效优于普罗帕酮。普罗帕酮组和胺碘酮组的不良反应发生率分别为18.8%和17.9%,对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),均未见严重毒副反应及致心律失常作用。结论两药对治疗和预防PFA复发性均有较好疗效,且相对安全,胺碘酮的短期复律疗效低于普罗帕酮,但预防PAF复发的远期疗效优于普罗帕酮。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of propafenone and amiodarone in treating and preventing paroxysmal atrial fibrillation(PAF).Methods 80 patiens with atrial fibrillation were divided into propafenone group(n=32),amiodarone group(n=28) and placebo group(n=20) randomly.Each was treated for more than 3 moths.Results Within 48 hours after treatment the recovery rates in propafenone group,amiodarone group and placebo group were 72.7%,42.1% and 23.1%,respectively.The response rate of propafenone group was higher than that of the other two groups(P<0.05).The follow-up period was 21.6±8.0 months,and the total response rates were 62.5%,71.4% and 15.0%,respectively.No significant difference was found between the propafenone group and amiodarone group,but the rate in the two groups was much higher that in the placebo group(P<0.01).After more than 12 months’ follow-up,the response rate of amiodarone group was superior to the propafenone group(P<0.05).The occurrence rates of adverse reactions in the propafenone group and amiodarone group were 18.8% and 17.9% respectively,there was no significant difference(P>0.05).No serious side-effects or arrhythmia were found.Conclusion Both drugs were effective and relatively safe in the treatment and prevention of the relapse of PAF.The efficacy of amiodarone is lower in short-term recovery but higher in long-term prevention of recurrence.更多还原