Application of Amiodarone and Cedilan in the Treatment of Patients with Arrhythmia after Esophageal and Lung Cancer

Abstract

Objective: To explore the effect of amiodarone and cedilan in the treatment of patients with arrhythmia after esophageal and lung cancer.

Methods: The data of 60 patients with postoperative complications of arrhythmias after esophageal and lung cancer from January 2018 to July 2021 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into an observation group (n = 30) and control group (n = 30) according to the random number grouping principle. The former group was treated with amiodarone, and the latter group received cedilan.

Results: The effective rate of treatment was significantly higher in the observation group than the control group (P < 0.05). The observation group had the drug onset time obviously shorter than the control group (P < 0.001). The average ventricular rate after treatment in the observation group was remarkably lower than the control group (P < 0.001). The observation group exhibited obviously better cardiac function after treatment as compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was notably lower than the control group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the observation group had less stress after treatment than the control group (P < 0.001). The blood pressure level of the observation group after treatment was significantly better than the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Amiodarone can relieve stress in patients with arrhythmia following esophageal and lung cancer surgery, stabilize blood pressure, and mitigate arrhythmia symptoms. Our findings are worthy of promotion and application in clinic.

Figure 1

Intergroup comparison of treatment effects (n(%)). Note: see Figures 1(a) and 1(b) for the observation group and the control group, respectively. The black area in the figure refers to markedly effective, the dark gray area means effective, and the light gray area indicates ineffective. # means P < 0.05. In the observation group, 15 (50.0%), 13 (43.3%), and 2 (6.7%) patients were markedly effective, effective, and ineffective after the treatment, and in the control group, 8 (26.7%), 12 (40.0%), and 10 (33.3%) patients were remarkably effective, effective, and ineffective after treatment, respectively.

Figure 2

Intergroup comparison of average ventricular rate before and after treatment ($\overline{x}$ ± s, times/min). Note: the horizontal axis in Figure 2 is from left to right before and after treatment, and the vertical axis is the average ventricular rate (times/min). The dotted line in the figure refers to the observation group and the square line the control group. # indicates P < 0.001. There was no significant difference in the average ventricular rate before treatment between the observation group and the control group (148.65 ± 12.65 vs 148.54 ± 12.45 and P > 0.05). The average ventricular rate after treatment was notably lower in the observation group than the control group (80.65 ± 8.65 vs 101.54 ± 10.11 and P < 0.001).

Figure 3

Intergroup comparison of drug onset time ($\overline{x}$ ± s min). Note: in Figure 3, the horizontal axis is the observation group and the control group from left to right, and the vertical axis is the drug onset time (min). # indicates P < 0.001. The drug onset time was obviously lower in the observation group as compared to the control group (18.54 ± 2.15 vs 32.14 ± 3.98 and P < 0.001).

Figure 4

Intergroup comparison of stress indicators ($\overline{x}$ ± s). Note: the horizontal axes of Figures 4(a) and 4(b) are pretreatment and post-treatment, respectively, from left to right. The black area in the figure means the observation group, and the gray area indicates the control group. # indicates P < 0.001. See Figure (a) for the blood glucose level. The blood glucose level was significantly lower in the observation group after treatment than the control group (3.89 ± 0.32 vs 5.42 ± 0.68, P < 0.001). Figure (b) indicates the insulin level. After treatment, the insulin level was significantly higher in the observation group than the control group (14.20 ± 1.65 vs 11.10 ± 1.20, P < 0.001).