| Acute myocardial infarction combined with heart failure happening ventricular arrhythmia was one of the lethal emergencies in coronary care unit (CCU). It was an independent risk factor that led patients to death It had great significance for saving patients to treat ventricular arrhythmia effectiv(?)ly. It was a common and complicated and troublesome problem to cure ventricular arrhythmia in clinical work.Lidocaine has been elected to treat ventricular arrhythmia in clinical for many years. But it may lead to severe complications, such as leading severe arrhythmia that led patients to death, much worse congestive heart failure or less effect. It can only be used in vein, while not be used in oral. It cannot decrease mortality.Amiodarone has recently been used to treat ventricular arrhythmia in clinical by physicians. However compared with both of them in effectiveness and reliability and decrease in morbidity, how about the result of each medicine on the earth? No answer to it.Though amiodarone has already been physicians' powerful weapon to treat ventricular arrhythmia, deeper research was necessary to comprehend more about its effect. The more enlightenment can be got in antiarrhythmic drugs'application, the better serve can be got by patients.Based on the above-mentioned, in order to deepen comprehension andknowledge of amiodarone, to comprehend its reliability and effectiveness on anti-ventricular arrhythmia, two matched-control groups were designed. One was amiodarone and the other was lidocaine. Their reliability and effectiveness could be found out for anti-ventricular arrhythmia in acute myocardial infarction combined with heart failure happening ventricular arrhythmia. It could provide some basis for clinical therapy choices.Method: There were 58 patients with acute myocardial infarctioncombined with heart failure happening ventricular arrhythmia all together. They were divided into two groups randomly. Group of amiodarone (n=30) had 20 men and 10 women with mean age 53.6 + 8.8. Group of Iidocaine (n=28) had 17 men and 11 women with mean age 52.8 + 10.2. There was no significant difference between two groups.It was import* ? marker that reducing the incidence of arrhythmia anddecreasing mortality in vr luation antiarrhythmic effect. Observing the index mark of post-medication:1 .reducing the incidence rate of arrhytlimia2. mortality3.Incidence rate of sideeffectResults: Group of amiodarone: 25 cases were treated by amiodarone successfully. Treatment effective rate was 83.3% (25/30 cases). 3 cases were treated by amiodarone unsuccessfully. After that, synchro-direct current (50~ 100J)was used to change into sinus rhythm (normal cardiac rhythm)and got success. Then amiodarone was used to maintain the normal cardiac rhythm continuously. 2 cases cannot be changed into sinus rhythm unfortunately, finally developing to Vf (Ventricular fibrillation) even worsen to death at last. Total treatment effective rate of amiodarone was 93.3% (28/30cases). Mortality was 6.7% (2/30 cases). Group of Iidocaine: 15 cases were treated by Iidocaine successfully. Treatment effective rate was 53.6% (15/28 cases). 9 cases were treated by Iidocaine unsuccessfully. After that, synchro-direct current (50~ 100J)\vas used to change into sinus rhythtm (normal cardiac rhythm)and got success. Then Iidocaine was used to maintain the normal cardiac rhythm continuously. 4 cases cannot be changed into sinus rhythm unfortunately, finally developing to Vf (Ventricular fibrillation) even worsen to death at last. Total treatment effective rate of Iidocaine was 85.7% (24/28cases). Mortality was 14.3% (4/28cases). Compared with the two groups, treatment effective rate of amiodarone was higher than that of Iidocaine P<0.05, which had statistical... |
PDF Full Text Request