张素华

【摘 要】 目的：观察中西医结合治疗椎-基底动脉供血不足性眩晕的临床疗效。方法：选取50例椎-基底动脉供血不足性眩晕的患者，随机分成对照组和治疗组各25例，对照组采用静脉滴注银杏叶提取物及灯盏细辛并口服尼莫地平片；治疗组在对照组的基础上加用半夏白术天麻汤加减口服治疗，比较两组临床效果及治疗前后血流速度（TCD检查）。结果：治疗后，两组在BA、VA的Vd、Vm上均有明显改善，但治疗组血流速度改善更加明显（P<0.05）；治疗组总有效率明显高于对照组，差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论：半夏白术天麻汤加减合西药治疗椎基底动脉供血不足性眩晕疗效较好，值得临床推广。

【关键词】 椎-基底动脉供血不足；眩晕；半夏白术天麻汤；中西医结合

【中图分类号】R255.3 【文献标志码】 A【文章编号】1007-8517（2018）04-0107-03

Abstract：Objective To observe the clinical effect of combination of traditional Chinese and Western medicine in the treatment of vertebrobasilar insufficiency vertigo.Methods A total of 50 patients with vertebrobasilar insufficiency vertigo were randomly divided into control group and treatment group， 25 cases in the control group， by intravenous injection of Ginkgo biloba extract and Erigeron breviscapus treatment and oral administration of Nimodipine Tablets； 25 cases in the treatment group， on the basis of the control group treated with Banxia white atractylodes Tianma decoctionplus subtraction orally. Comparison of therapeutic effects of two groups of patients with blood flow velocity （TCD）.Results In the two groups in BA and VA， Vd and Vm has improved significantly， but the treatment group blood flow velocity improve more obvious（P<0.05）； Look from clinical effect， pinellia tuber of atractylodes rhizoma gastrodiae tonga subtraction has obvious advantages in the treatment group than the control group（P<0.05）.Conclusion The combination of traditional Chinese and Western medicine in the treatment of vertebrobasilar artery insufficiency vertigo curative effect is accurate， worthy of clinical promotion.

Keywords：Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency；Vertigo；Banxia Baizhu Tianma Decoction；Combination of Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine

椎-基底動脉供血不足性眩晕是中老年人常见疾病，主要临床症状有眩晕、头昏、头脑不清晰感，常伴有恶心、呕吐，耳鸣等症状，严重影响患者生活质量。西医采用西药对症治疗，疗程长，效果一般[1]，而联合中医辨证治疗，每获良效。中医学将该病归为“眩晕”范畴，痰浊中阻为其常见的证型[2]。笔者为观察中药汤剂联合西药对眩晕的治疗效果，选取25例椎-基底动脉供血不足性眩晕患者，予以半夏白术天麻汤加减合西药治疗，取得较好疗效，现报告如下。

1 资料与方法

1.1 一般资料 50例椎-基底动脉供血不足性眩晕患者均为我院2015年1月至2017年1月收治的住院患者，随机分为对照组和治疗组各25例。对照组男10例，女15例，年龄14～65岁，平均年龄（34.23±6.52），病程5～30 d，平均病程（8.5±1.2） d；治疗组男13例，女12例，年龄17～76岁，平均年龄（35.43±5.44）岁，病程3～25 d，平均病程（8.2±1.1） d。两组在性别、年龄、病程等一般资料方面比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05），具有可比性。……