目的 比較烏拉地爾及硝普鈉對高血壓腦出血患者急性期降壓作用及預后的影響。方法 將高血壓腦出血患者根據(jù)用藥情況分為烏拉地爾組及硝普鈉組。硝普鈉組患者予以注射用硝普鈉治療，治療初始劑量為0.5～1.0 μg/（kg·min）；烏拉地爾組患者予以烏拉地爾注射液治療。比較兩組用藥后血壓變化、心率變化、血腫大小變化及神經(jīng)功能評分的差異。結(jié)果 兩組患者在分別用藥10、20、30、60、120 min后，使用烏拉地爾組患者平均收縮壓及平均舒張壓高于使用硝普鈉組患者，組間差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義（P<0.05），在分別用藥240 min后，兩組患者的平均收縮壓及平均舒張壓差異無統(tǒng)計學意義。在分別用藥10、20、30、60、120、240 min后，烏拉地爾組患者的平均心率低于硝普鈉組患者的平均心率，組間差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義（P<0.05）。在分別用藥24、72 h后，兩組患者的血腫大小差異無統(tǒng)計學意義。1個月后，兩組患者的神經(jīng)功能評分具有顯著差異（P<0.05）。結(jié)論 烏拉地爾能有效控制高血壓腦出血患者急性期血壓，且其神經(jīng)功能保護作用較硝普鈉顯著。

Objective To compare the effects of urapidil and sodium nitroprusside on blood pressure and prognosis in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.Methods After 10, 20, 30, 60 and 120 minutes, the systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure of patients in urapidil group were lower than those in sodium nitroprusside group (P<0.05). After 240 minutes, two groups's diastolic blood pressure were not significantly different. After 10, 20, 30, 60, 120 and 240 minutes, the heart rate of patients in urapidil group were lower than that in sodium nitroprusside group, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the size of hematoma between the two groups. After 1 month, there were significant differences in neurological scores between the two groups (P<0.05).Conclusion Urapidil can effectively control blood pressure in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage, and its long-term neuroprotective effect than sodium nitroprusside significantly.