胺碘酮与改良式Valsalva动作治疗阵发性室上性心动过速急诊患者的临床疗效对比  

Amiodarone and Modified Valsalva Manoeuvre in the Treatment of Emergency Patients with Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardia:A Comparison of Clinical Efficacy

作　　者：魏征 石文娟 郭鹏 Wei Zheng;Shi Wenjuan;Guo Peng(Emergency Department,The Fifth People's Hospital of Anyang City,Anyang 455000,Henan)

机构地区：[1]安阳市第五人民医院急诊科,河南安阳455000

出　　处：《哈尔滨医药》2024年第6期18-20,共3页Harbin Medical Journal

摘　　要：目的探讨胺碘酮与改良式Valsalva动作治疗阵发性室上性心动过速急诊患者的临床疗效差异。方法纳入84例阵发性室上性心动过速急诊患者,按照治疗方式不同分为Valsalva组(给予改良式Valsalva动作治疗,43例)、胺碘酮组(给予胺碘酮治疗,41例)。比较两组临床疗效、复律结果[恢复窦性心律成功率、平均复律时间、转复维持有效率],对比两组治疗前后[右侧颈内静脉前后径、左右径]、心功能指标[左心室射血分数(LVEF)、左室舒张末期容积(LVEDV)、左室收缩末期容积(LVESV)],比较两组治疗期间不良反应发生率差异。结果两组治疗总有效率比较(88.37%VS 95.12%)差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);胺碘酮组恢复窦性心律成功率、转复维持有效率均高于Valsalva组(P<0.05);胺碘酮组平均复律时间高于Valsalva组(P<0.05);干预后,两组右侧颈内静脉前后径、左右径均升高(P<0.05),且胺碘酮组高于Valsalva组(P<0.05);治疗后,两组LVEF均升高(P<0.05),两组LVEDV、LVESV均降低(P<0.05),且组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组不良反应发生率比较(11.63%vs 9.76%)差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论相较于改良Valsalva动作治疗手段,胺碘酮干预用于急诊PSVT中可获得更佳复律效果,有助于右侧颈内静脉内径扩大,且不良反应轻微。Objective To explore the differences in the clinical efficacy of amiodarone and modified Valsalva manoeuvre in the treatment of emergency patients with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia(PSVT).Methods A total of 84 emergency patients with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia admitted during the period from March 2018 to March 2023 were included and divided according to different treatment methods into the Valsalva group(treated with modified Valsalva manoeuvre,43 cases)and the amiodarone group(treated with amiodarone,41 cases).The clinical efficacy,defibrillation results(success rate of restoring sinus rhythm,average defibrillation time,and conversion maintenance effective rate),as well as the right internal jugular vein anterior-posterior diameter and left-right diameter before and after treatment and cardiac function indicators[left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF),left ventricular end-diastolic volume(LVEDV),and left ventricular endsystolic volume(LVESV)]were compared between the two groups.The difference in the incidence of adverse reactions during the treatment period between the two groups was also compared.Results There was no significant difference in the total treatment effectiveness between the two groups(88.37%vs.95.12%,P>0.05);the success rate of restoring sinus rhythm and the conversion maintenance effective rate in the amiodarone group were both higher than those in the Valsalva group(P<0.05);the average defibrillation time in the amiodarone group was higher than that in the Valsalva group(P<0.05);after the intervention,the anterior-posterior diameter and left-right diameter of the right internal jugular vein in both groups increased(P<0.05),and the values in the amiodarone group were higher than those in the Valsalva group(P<0.05);after treatment,LVEF increased in the two groups(P<0.05),LVEDV and LVESV decreased in the two groups(P<0.05),with significant differences between the groups(P<0.05);there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups

关 键 词：阵发性室上性心动过速 胺碘酮 改良式Valsalva动作 临床疗效 

分 类 号：R541[医药卫生—心血管疾病]