射频消融术与药物治疗室性心律失常的效果比较
|
摘要
目的比较射频消融术与药物治疗室性心律失常的效果。方法选取2015年3月～2016年9月我院收治的100例无器质性心脏病的室性心律失常患者作为研究对象,使用计算机随机分组方法将其分为药物治疗组(50例)与射频消融组(50例)。药物治疗组患者采用琥珀酸美托洛尔或普罗帕酮等药物治疗,射频消融组患者采用射频消融术治疗。比较两组患者的临床治疗总有效率、治疗前后QT离散度(QTd)和校正的QT离散度(QTcd)及不良反应总发生率。结果射频消融组患者的临床治疗总有效率为90.0%,显著高于药物治疗组的64.0%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者治疗前的QTd、QTcd比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);射频消融组患者治疗后的QTd、QTcd均显著低于治疗前,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);药物治疗组患者治疗后的QTd、QTcd均低于治疗前,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);射频消融组患者治疗后的QTd、QTcd均显著低于药物治疗组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。射频消融组患者的不良反应总发生率为2.0%,显著低于药物治疗组的20.0%。结论射频消融术治疗室性心律失常患者的临床效果显著优于单纯药物治疗,且不良反应发生率低,值得临床推广。
Objective To compare the effect of radiofrequency ablation and drugs in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmia.Methods A total of 100 patients with ventricular arrhythmia without organic heart disease admitted to our hospital from March 2015 to September 2016 were selected as subjects.The patients were divided into the drug treatment group(50 cases) and radiofrequency ablation group(50 cases) according to the computer random grouping method.Patients in the drug treatment group were treated with Metoprolol Succinate or Propafenone,and patients in the radiofrequency ablation group were treated with radiofrequency ablation.The total effective rate of clinical treatment,QT dispersion(QTd) and corrected QT dispersion(QTcd) before and after treatment,and total incidence rate of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups.Results The total effective rate of clinical treatment in the radiofrequency ablation group was 90.0%,which was significantly higher than that in the drug treatment group accounting for64.0%,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).There were no significant differences in QTd and QTcd between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05).The QTd and QTcd of patients in the radiofrequency ablation group were significantly lower than those before treatment,and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).The QTd and QTcd of the patients in the drug treatment group were lower than those before treatment,but the differences were not statistically significant(P>0.05).The QTd and QTcd of patients in the radiofrequency ablation group were significantly lower than those in the drug treatment group,and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).The total incidence rate of adverse reactions was 2.0% in the radiofrequency ablation group,which was significantly lower than that in the drug treatment group accounting for 20.0%.Conclusion The clinical effect of radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of patients with ventricular arrhythmia is significantly better than that of drugs alone,and the incidence rate of adverse reactions is low,which is worthy of clinical promotion.
Objective To compare the effect of radiofrequency ablation and drugs in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmia.Methods A total of 100 patients with ventricular arrhythmia without organic heart disease admitted to our hospital from March 2015 to September 2016 were selected as subjects.The patients were divided into the drug treatment group(50 cases) and radiofrequency ablation group(50 cases) according to the computer random grouping method.Patients in the drug treatment group were treated with Metoprolol Succinate or Propafenone,and patients in the radiofrequency ablation group were treated with radiofrequency ablation.The total effective rate of clinical treatment,QT dispersion(QTd) and corrected QT dispersion(QTcd) before and after treatment,and total incidence rate of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups.Results The total effective rate of clinical treatment in the radiofrequency ablation group was 90.0%,which was significantly higher than that in the drug treatment group accounting for64.0%,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).There were no significant differences in QTd and QTcd between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05).The QTd and QTcd of patients in the radiofrequency ablation group were significantly lower than those before treatment,and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).The QTd and QTcd of the patients in the drug treatment group were lower than those before treatment,but the differences were not statistically significant(P>0.05).The QTd and QTcd of patients in the radiofrequency ablation group were significantly lower than those in the drug treatment group,and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).The total incidence rate of adverse reactions was 2.0% in the radiofrequency ablation group,which was significantly lower than that in the drug treatment group accounting for 20.0%.Conclusion The clinical effect of radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of patients with ventricular arrhythmia is significantly better than that of drugs alone,and the incidence rate of adverse reactions is low,which is worthy of clinical promotion.
引文
[1]曹克将,陈明龙,江洪,等.室性心律失常中国专家共识[J].中国心脏起搏与心电生理杂志,2016,30(4):283-325.
[2]桑城,郝恒剑,许骥,等.心率变异性和QT间期变异性与急性心肌梗死患者室性心律失常的关系研究[J].中国循证心血管医学杂志,2018,10(2):230-232.
[3]刘元生,封旭.房颤射频消融术后患者的远期脑卒中危险因素及防治[J].中华心脏与心律电子杂志,2015,3(3):44-48.
[4]黄园琴,秦长喻,李颖,等.盐酸尼非卡兰在瓣膜置换术同期行心房颤动射频消融术后窦性心律的维持作用[J].中国心脏起搏与心电生理杂志,2018,32(1):38-40.
[5]蔡小彪.胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死后室性心律失常临床效果分析[J].心电图杂志(电子版),2018,7(2):141-143.
[6]张楠,孙萌,王睿.阵发性心房颤动患者射频消融术后稳心颗粒的应用价值[J].中华心脏与心律电子杂志,2017,5(1):18-20.
[7]周建华,吴慧慧.射频消融术在小儿快速心律失常中的疗效分析[J].中国循证心血管医学杂志,2015,7(2):245-247.
[8]黄鹤,黄从新,唐艳红,等.参松养心胶囊治疗心肌梗死后室性心律失常的疗效和机制研究:基本原理和设计方案[J].中华心律失常学杂志,2018,22(3):205-208.
[9]金利.胺碘酮联合倍他乐克治疗室性心律失常的临床效果[J].临床医学研究与实践,2018,3(7):40-41.
[10]薛利,蔡衡,聂晶,等.心房纤颤患者射频消融术后复发的相关因素分析[J].中国循证心血管医学杂志,2016,8(4):461-463.
[11]张涛,李东锋.中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值对阵发性心房颤动射频消融术后复发的预测价值[J].中国循证心血管医学杂志,2017,9(7):825-827.
[12]丁伟琴,罗宇飞.应用零射线射频消融术救治1例妊娠33周伴短阵室性心动过速孕妇的护理[J].现代医药卫生,2018,34(1):150-152.
[13]陈刚,樊晓寒,张奎俊,等.特发性右心室流出道室性心律失常起源和射频消融结果影响因素的性别差异[J].中华心律失常学杂志,2018,22(2):134-139.
[14]李海涛,顾承雄,于洋,等.双极射频消融术在合并附壁血栓的左心室壁瘤相关室性心律失常的应用[J].中国胸心血管外科临床杂志,2016,23(2):128-132.
[15]曹爱芳.2例非接触式球囊标测系统指导下行室性心律失常射频消融术患者的护理[J].中国护理管理,2016,16(S1):77-78.
[2]桑城,郝恒剑,许骥,等.心率变异性和QT间期变异性与急性心肌梗死患者室性心律失常的关系研究[J].中国循证心血管医学杂志,2018,10(2):230-232.
[3]刘元生,封旭.房颤射频消融术后患者的远期脑卒中危险因素及防治[J].中华心脏与心律电子杂志,2015,3(3):44-48.
[4]黄园琴,秦长喻,李颖,等.盐酸尼非卡兰在瓣膜置换术同期行心房颤动射频消融术后窦性心律的维持作用[J].中国心脏起搏与心电生理杂志,2018,32(1):38-40.
[5]蔡小彪.胺碘酮治疗急性心肌梗死后室性心律失常临床效果分析[J].心电图杂志(电子版),2018,7(2):141-143.
[6]张楠,孙萌,王睿.阵发性心房颤动患者射频消融术后稳心颗粒的应用价值[J].中华心脏与心律电子杂志,2017,5(1):18-20.
[7]周建华,吴慧慧.射频消融术在小儿快速心律失常中的疗效分析[J].中国循证心血管医学杂志,2015,7(2):245-247.
[8]黄鹤,黄从新,唐艳红,等.参松养心胶囊治疗心肌梗死后室性心律失常的疗效和机制研究:基本原理和设计方案[J].中华心律失常学杂志,2018,22(3):205-208.
[9]金利.胺碘酮联合倍他乐克治疗室性心律失常的临床效果[J].临床医学研究与实践,2018,3(7):40-41.
[10]薛利,蔡衡,聂晶,等.心房纤颤患者射频消融术后复发的相关因素分析[J].中国循证心血管医学杂志,2016,8(4):461-463.
[11]张涛,李东锋.中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值对阵发性心房颤动射频消融术后复发的预测价值[J].中国循证心血管医学杂志,2017,9(7):825-827.
[12]丁伟琴,罗宇飞.应用零射线射频消融术救治1例妊娠33周伴短阵室性心动过速孕妇的护理[J].现代医药卫生,2018,34(1):150-152.
[13]陈刚,樊晓寒,张奎俊,等.特发性右心室流出道室性心律失常起源和射频消融结果影响因素的性别差异[J].中华心律失常学杂志,2018,22(2):134-139.
[14]李海涛,顾承雄,于洋,等.双极射频消融术在合并附壁血栓的左心室壁瘤相关室性心律失常的应用[J].中国胸心血管外科临床杂志,2016,23(2):128-132.
[15]曹爱芳.2例非接触式球囊标测系统指导下行室性心律失常射频消融术患者的护理[J].中国护理管理,2016,16(S1):77-78.