目的评价复方阿嗪米特、多潘立酮及二者联合使用等不同方案对功能性消化不良(FD)的临床疗效并进行比较,探讨治疗FD的较好治疗方案。方法将110例功能性消化不良患者随机分成:单口服多潘立酮组(A组37例)、单口服复方阿嗪米特组(B组36例)及口服复方阿嗪米特和多潘立酮组(C组37例)等三组,疗程4周。采用腹胀症状评分法和进行饮水负荷试验评价各组治疗前后的改善程度。结果治疗1、2、4周后,A、B、C三组腹胀积分及均低于治疗前(P<0.05),B组与A组比较、C组与A组比较,P<0.01;C组与B组比较,P<0.05;差异有统计学意义。A、B、C三组最大饮水量变化:均大于治疗前,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);B组与A组比较、C组与A组比较,P<0.01;C组与B组比较,P<0.05。差异有统计学意义。A、B、C三组患者治疗总有效率:1周后分别为37.8%、58.3%和81.1%,2周后分别为48.6%、75.0%和86.5%,4周后分别为54.1%、86.1%和94.6%;B组与A组比较、C组与A组比较,P<0.01;C组与B组比较,P<0.05;差异有统计学意义。治疗过程中各组均未出现严重药物副作用。结论复方阿嗪米特肠溶片治疗FD的临床疗效明显优于促动力药多潘立酮;而复方阿嗪米特与多潘立酮联合使用,则可获得更好的治疗功能性消化不良的临床疗效。复方阿嗪米特联合多潘立酮的治疗方案,有临床推广价值。 Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of the combination of alizarin, domperidone and their combination in the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD) and to compare and evaluate the treatment of FD. Methods One hundred and ten patients with functional dyspepsia were randomly divided into three groups: single oral domperidone group (group A, 37 cases), single oral compound azintamide group (group B, 36 cases) and oral compound azinitreotide and domperidone group (group C 37 cases) and other three groups, treatment for 4 weeks. Abdominal distension symptom score and drinking load test were used to evaluate the improvement of each group before and after treatment. Results After 1, 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, the scores of abdominal distension in groups A, B and C were all lower than those before treatment (P <0.05), and those in group B were significantly lower than those in group A Group B compared with P <0.05; the difference was statistically significant. The changes of maximum water intake in groups A, B and C were all greater than those before treatment (P <0.05), while those in group B were significantly lower than those in group A (P <0.01) Group comparison, P <0.05. The difference was statistically significant. The total effective rate was 37.8%, 58.3% and 81.1% in group A, B and C respectively, 48.6%, 75.0% and 86.5% after 2 weeks, 54.1% and 86.1 after 4 weeks respectively % And 94.6%, respectively. Compared with group A, group B and group A, P <0.01; group C and group B, P <0.05; the difference was statistically significant. No adverse drug side effects occurred in all the groups during the course of treatment. Conclusion The clinical efficacy of compound azimit enteric-coated tablets in the treatment of FD was significantly better than that of domperidone domperidone. However, the combination of compound azintomide and domperidone could achieve better clinical efficacy in treating functional dyspepsia. Compound arazide combined domperidone treatment options, the clinical value of the promotion.