论文部分内容阅读
目的比较急诊经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)与静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死(AMI)的临床疗效及安全性。方法选取2015年5月—2016年3月荆州市监利县人民医院心血管内科收治的AMI患者68例,采用随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组,每组34例。对照组患者给予静脉溶栓治疗,观察组患者行急诊PCI。比较两组患者心肌梗死溶栓试验(TIMI)血流分级,治疗前后左心室收缩末期内径(LVESD)、左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)、左心室射血分数(LVEF),随访1年期间不良心血管事件(心绞痛、心力衰竭、心源性死亡、再梗死)发生情况。结果观察组患者TIMI血流分级优于对照组(P<0.05)。两组患者治疗前LVESD、LVEDD、LVEF比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组患者治疗后LVESD、LVEDD均低于对照组,LVEF高于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组患者随访期间不良心血管事件发生率低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论与静脉溶栓治疗相比,急诊PCI治疗AMI的临床疗效更好、安全性更高。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and intravenous thrombolysis in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods Sixty-eight AMI patients admitted to Jianli County People’s Hospital of Jingzhou from May 2015 to March 2016 were randomly divided into control group and observation group with 34 cases in each group. Patients in the control group received intravenous thrombolysis and patients in the observation group received emergency PCI. The TIMI flow classification, LVESD, LVEDD and LVEF before and after treatment were compared between the two groups. The patients were followed up for 1 year Cardiovascular events (angina pectoris, heart failure, cardiogenic death, reinfarction). Results The TIMI grade in the observation group was better than that in the control group (P <0.05). LVESD, LVEDD and LVEF before treatment in the two groups had no significant difference (P> 0.05). The LVESD and LVEDD in the observation group were lower than those in the control group after treatment, and the LVEF in the observation group was higher than that in the control group (P <0.05). The incidence of adverse cardiovascular events during follow-up in observation group was lower than that in control group (P <0.05). Conclusion Compared with intravenous thrombolytic therapy, the clinical efficacy of emergency PCI in the treatment of AMI is better and the safety is higher.