论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨血管内介入治疗后循环供血区急性梗死患者的临床疗效。方法选取本院2005年3月~2016年3月收治的104例后循环供血区急性梗死患者作为介入组,采用血管内介入治疗方法对该组患者实施治疗,选取同期收治的接受内科药物治疗的104例后循环供血区急性梗死患者作为对照组,并对2组的临床疗效进行评价。结果治疗前介入组的神经功能缺损程度(脑卒中临床神经功能缺损程度评分量表)评分与对照组比较无显著性差异(t=0.499,P>0.05),治疗后神经功能优于对照组(t=6.086,P<0.05);介入组、对照组的血管再通率分别为82.7%、56.7%,2组比较差异明显(χ2=16.599,P<0.05);介入组、对照组治疗后随访3个月的日常生活能力评分(ADL评分)分别为(53.6±4.2)、(45.9±4.1)分,2组比较差异明显(t=5.867,P<0.05)。结论采用血管内介入治疗方法对后循环供血区急性梗死患者实施治疗,疗效可靠,能够有效改善患者预后。
Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of percutaneous delivery of acute infarction patients after endovascular interventional therapy. Methods A total of 104 patients with acute infarction in the posterior circulation blood supply area from March 2005 to March 2016 in our hospital were selected as the intervention group. The patients in this group were treated by endovascular interventional therapy. The patients in the same period were enrolled in this study. 104 cases of posterior circulation of patients with acute infarction as a control group, and the clinical efficacy of two groups were evaluated. Results There was no significant difference in the degree of neurological deficit (score of clinical neurological deficit score scale) between the intervention group before treatment and the control group (t = 0.499, P> 0.05). After treatment, the neurological function was better than that of the control group t = 6.086, P <0.05). The recanalization rates of the intervention group and the control group were 82.7% and 56.7% respectively, which were significantly different between the two groups (χ2 = 16.599, P <0.05) The ADL score of 3 months was (53.6 ± 4.2) and (45.9 ± 4.1) points, respectively. There was significant difference between the two groups (t = 5.867, P <0.05). Conclusion Endovascular treatment of acute infarction in patients with posterior circulation of blood supply to the implementation of treatment, reliable, and can effectively improve the prognosis of patients.