两种钙离拮抗剂治疗老年非杓型高血压临床对比研究.docVIP

两种钙离子拮抗剂治疗老年非杓型高血压临床对比研究 　　[摘要] 目的 探讨硝苯地平和氨氯地平治疗老年非杓型高血压临床疗效及安全性差异。 方法 研究对象整群选取该院2013年3月―2015年6月收治老年非杓型高血压患者共170例，以随机数字表法分为A组（85例）和B组（85例），分别采用氨氯地平与硝苯地平治疗；比较两组患者诊室血压控制率，血压昼夜节律异常改善率及不良反应发生率等。结果 A组患者诊室血压控制率分别为81.54%（53/85），84.62%（55/85）；两组患者血压控制率比较差异无统计学意义（P0.05）；A组和B组患者血压昼夜节律异常改善率分别为31.76%（27/85），54.12%（46/85）；B组患者血压昼夜节律异常改善率显著高于A组（P0.05）。 结论 硝苯地平和氨氯地平治疗老年非杓型高血压均可有效控制血压水平，并未导致严重不良反应发生；但硝苯地平应用在促进血压昼夜节律恢复方面效果优于氨氯地平。 中国论文网 /6/viewhtm　　[关键词] 钙离子拮抗剂；非杓型高血压；疗效；安全性 　　[中图分类号] R54 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 1674-0742（2016）05（b）-0020-03 　　[Abstract] Objective To discuss the differences in the clinical curative effect and safety of nifedipine and amlodipine in treatment of elderly non-dipping hypertension. Methods 170 cases of elderly patients with non-dipping hypertension admitted and treated in our hospital from March 2013 to June 2015 were selected as the research objects and randomly divided into two groups with 85 cases in each， the group A were treated with amlodipine， the group B were treated with nifedipine， and the office blood pressure control rate， circadian blood pressure profile abnormal improvement rate and incidence rate of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results The difference in the office blood pressure control rate between the group A and the group B had no statistical significance， [81.54% （53/85） vs 84.62% （55/85）]，（P0.05）； the circadian blood pressure profile abnormal improvement rate in the group B was obviously higher than that in the group A [（31.76%（27/85） vs 54.12%（46/85）]，（P0.05）. Conclusion Nifedipine and amlodipine in treatment of elderly non-dipping hypertension can effectively control the blood pressure level and cannot lead to adverse reactions， but the effect of nifedipine in promoting the recovery of circadian blood pressure profile is better than that of amlodipine. 　　[Key words] Calcium antagonist； Non-dipping hypertension； Curative effect； Safety 　　部分口服一种或两种以上降压药老年高血压患者存在凌晨血压升高，正常昼夜血压节律消失，这种特殊类型高血压被称为非杓型高血压；目前其已成为导致