摘要
目的观察研究乌拉地尔对高血压危象患者的临床疗效以及用药安全性。方法本研究选择杭州市余杭区第五人民医院2010年1月～2012年12月收治的120例高血压危象患者作为研究对象，按照随机数字法将其分为治疗组和对照组．两组患者人院后给予临床常规处理，对照组60例患者在此基础上给予硝普钠，治疗组60例患者则给予乌拉地尔．观察两组患者在治疗后10、20、30min血压以及心率变化、临床症状改善情况，对比分析两种治疗方法的疗效以及不良反应发生情况。结果两组患者治疗前血压比较差异不明显（P〉0．05），治疗后10min血压开始下降、20min明显下降、30min保持稳定，但是治疗组血压变化相比于对照组明显（P〈0．05）；对照组患者治疗前后心率无明显变化，治疗组心率明显降低，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；给药后患者临床症状明显改善，10、30min后治疗组总有效率分别为91．67％、98．33％，明显高于对照组治疗总有效率（73．33％、86．67％）（X^2=6．98，P〈0．01；X^2=4．32，P〈0．05）；治疗组头晕、头痛等不良发生率为3．33％，明显低于对照组不良反应发生率（13．33％）（X^2=3．93，P〈0．05）。结论临床上采用硝普钠和乌拉地尔治疗高血压危象均能达到快速控制血压的治疗目的，但是乌拉地尔药效较为平稳同时不良反应发生率低，不易引发心率加快，疗效确切且安全性高，更加实用于治疗高血压危象，可作为临床首选药物，在实践中广泛地推广和应用。
Objective To observe and study the clinical efficacy and medication safety of Urapidil on patients with hypertensive crisis. Methods In this study 120 cases of hypertensive crisis patients admitted to the Fifth People＇s Hospital of Yuhang District in Hangzhou City from January 2010 to December 2012 were selected as research objects, they are divided into the treatment group and the control group according to the random number method. Clinical routine treatments were made when two groups of patients were admitted, 60 patients in the control group were given Sodium Nitroprusside on this basis, while 60 patients in the treatment group were treated with Urapidil, changes to the blood pressure, heart rate and clinical symptom status of patients were observed after treatment for 10 min, 20 min and 30 rain, and efficacies and adverse events of two treatment methods were compared and analyzed. Results There was no significant difference in blood pressure of patients in two groups before treatment （P 〉 0.05）, and the blood pressure began to drop after 10 minutes of treatment, it significantly decreased, and it remained stable in 30 min, but the change in the blood pressure was more obvious when it was compared to that in the control group （P 〈 0.05）; no significant change occurred in the heart rate of patients in the control group before and after treatment, the heart rate of patients in the treatment group significantly lowered, and it was significantly different （P 〈 0.05）; the clinical symptoms improved significantly administration, and the total effective rate of the treatment group was 91.67% and 98.33% respectively after 10 min and 30 min, which were significantly higher than the total effective rate of 73.33% and 86.67% respectively in control group （X^2=6.98, P 〈 0.01;X^2=4.32, P 〈 0.05）; the incidence rate of adverse dizziness, and headache in the treatment group was 3.33%, significantly lower than that in the control group （13.33%） （X^2= 3.93, P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion Both Sodium Nitroprusside and Urapidil clinically used on the hypertensive crisis are able to achieve the treatment goal to rapidly control the blood pressure, but the efficacy of Urapidil is relatively stable, the incidence rate of adverse reaction is low, it is difficult to trigger the acceleration of heart rate, the efficacy is affirm and highly safety, and it is more practical in the treatment of hypertensive crisis. Urapidil can be used as preferred clinical drug, and it can be widey promoted and appliely in practices.
出处
《中国医药导报》
CAS
2013年第30期104-106,109,共4页
China Medical Herald
基金
教育部高等学校博士学科点专项科研基金(编号20113234120008)
