欢迎访问《现代生物医学进展》编辑部！

目的：比较尼卡地平和乌拉地尔治疗高血压急症的治疗效果和不良反应。方法：选择2010 年1 月至2011 年3 月就诊于我院的83例高血压急症患者，将其随机分为尼卡地平组42 例和乌拉地尔组41 例：尼卡地平组先给予1mg iv，然后以10-40μg/min 持续静点，然后根据血压情况调整药物剂量；乌拉地尔组先给予12.5mg iv，然后以50-200μg/ min 持续静点，然后根据血压情况调整药物剂量；记录用药前后心率、血压情况及不良反应。结果：尼卡地平和乌拉地尔在治疗高血压急症降血压方面，两者没有发现显著性差异（P >0.05），但治疗后尼卡地平组心率明显上升（P<0.05），乌拉地尔组心率明显下降（P<0.05）。此外，尼卡地平组的不良反应明显低于乌拉地尔组（P<0.05）。结论：尼卡地平和乌拉地尔对高血压急症均有良好的治疗效果，但尼卡地平更加安全，不良反应较少。

英文摘要:

Objective: To observe the effect and adverse reactions in patients with hypertensive emergencies in order to compare nicardipine with urapidil. Method: 83 patients with hypertensive emergencies who visited our hospital from Dec. 2010 to Mar. 2011 were divided into the following two groups at random, the nicardipine group and the urapidil group. The patients in the nicardipine group received a 1mg nicardipine injection intravenous, and 10-40μg/min intravenous transfusion was given continuous. The patients in the urapidil group received a 12.5mg urapidil injection intravenous, and 50-200μg/ min intravenous transfusion was given continuous. We change the dosage by the patients' blood pressure in both of the groups. The patients' blood pressure, heart rate and adverse reaction were recorded and analyzed. Result: There was no significant difference between nicardipine and urapidil to reduce the blood pressure in treatment patients with hypertensive emergencies (P>0.05). While in the nicardipine group, the heart rate rise after the treatment, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); in the urapidil group, the heart rate goes down after the treatment, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The nicardipine group has less adverse reactions than the urapidil group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion: Both of nicardipine and urapidil is effective in the treatment of hypertensive emergences, while the nicardipine is safer and has less adverse reaction.

查看全文查看/发表评论下载PDF阅读器

关闭