天麻钩藤饮联合倍他司汀对周围性眩晕疗效观察
Efficacy Observation of Betahistine Mesylate Combined with Tianma Gouteng Decoc-tionon Peripheral Vertigo

目的：研究口服甲磺酸倍他司汀联合天麻钩藤饮对于治疗周围性眩晕患者的疗效。方法：按照治疗方案不同将160例周围性眩晕患者分为对照组和观察组，每组各80例，对照组口服甲磺酸倍他司汀；观察组在对照组的基础上加用天麻钩藤饮。比较对照组和观察组患者疗效、眩晕障碍调查表(DHI)和Berg平衡量表及不良反应发生情况。结果：两组患者性别、年龄、病程，差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。两组患者治疗前DHI和BBS评分差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。对照组和观察组随着治疗时间的延长，DHI及BBS评分差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。对照组和观察组不良反应总发生率比较，差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。治疗2周后对照组总有效率为66.25%，观察组为77.50%，组间无统计学差异(P > 0.05)。治疗4周后对照组总有效率为81.25%，观察组为91.25%，组间有统计学差异(P < 0.05)。对照组治疗2周后与治疗4周后眩晕症状改善，差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。观察组治疗2周后与治疗后周后眩晕症状改善，差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论：口服甲磺酸倍他司汀联合天麻钩藤饮随着治疗时间的增长，可进一步改善患者眩晕发作时的症状，控制眩晕发作的次数及程度，且不良反应少，安全性高。
Objective: To study the therapeutic effect of oral betamethasone combined with Tianma Gouteng Decoction on patients with peripheral vertigo. Method: 160 patients with peripheral dizziness were divided into a control group and an observation group according to different treatment plans, with 80 cases in each group. The control group received oral betamethasone mesylate; The observation group received Tianma Gouteng Decoction in addition to the control group. Compare the efficacy, dizziness disorder questionnaire (DHI), Berg balance scale, and incidence of adverse reactions be-tween the control group and the observation group patients. Result: There was no statistically sig-nificant difference in gender, age, and disease course between the two groups of patients (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in DHI and BBS scores between the two groups of patients before treatment (P > 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in DHI and BBS scores between the control group and the observation group with the prolongation of treatment time (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the total incidence of adverse re-actions between the control group and the observation group (P > 0.05). After 2 weeks of treatment, the total effective rate in the control group was 66.25%, while in the observation group it was 77.50%. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05). After 4 weeks of treatment, the total effective rate in the control group was 81.25%, while in the observa-tion group it was 91.25%, with a statistically significant difference between the groups (P < 0.05). The improvement of dizziness symptoms in the control group after 2 weeks of treatment and 4 weeks of treatment was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) in the improvement of dizziness symptoms between the observation group af-ter 2 weeks of