论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨转运经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗与外援PCI对急性心肌梗死(AMI)救治的影响。方法收集经外援PCI方式(输送医生)救治的AMI患者50名以及经转运PCI方式(转运患者)救治的AMI患者50名的资料。比较两种救治方式对于决定介入至导管室(determine intervention to catheter room,DI-to-C)时间、决定介入至球囊扩张(determine intervention to balloon dilation,DI-to-B)时间、完全血运重建率、急性期住院病死率及随访6个月主要不良心血管事件(MACE)发生率的影响。结果两组总的转运路程为35~100 km,车程约40~90 min。外援PCI组DI-to-C、DI-to-B时间与转运PCI组无显著差别,但外援PCI组的完全血运重建率、急性期住院并发症率好于转运PCI组(P<0.05),两组的随访6个月的MACE发生率也有显著差异(P<0.05)。结论跟目前成熟的转运PCI相比,外援PCI无法缩短DI-to-C、DI-to-B时间,但在提高血运重建率、降低急性期住院并发症、改善预后方面有积极的意义。
Objective To investigate the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and PCI on acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods The data of 50 AMI patients and 50 AMI patients who were treated by PCI (transfusion doctor) and foreign PCI patients (transfusion doctors) were collected. Comparisons of the two treatment modalities for determining the time to DI in the catheter room (DI-to-C), determining the time between intervention and balloon dilation (DI-to-B), complete blood supply Reconstruction rate, hospital mortality in acute phase, and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 6 months of follow-up. Results The total transport distance of the two groups was 35-100 km and the journey was about 40-90 min. However, the complete revascularization rate in the PCI group and the complication rate in the acute phase were better than those in the PCI group (P <0.05). There was no significant difference between DI-to-C and DI-to- There was also a significant difference in the incidence of MACE between the two groups at 6 months of follow-up (P <0.05). Conclusions PCI can not shorten the DI-to-C and DI-to-B time compared with the current mature PCI. However, it is of great significance to improve the rate of revascularization, reduce the complications of acute hospitalization and improve the prognosis.