论文部分内容阅读
目的分析对比急性心肌梗死成功介入治疗及成功溶栓治疗的近期疗效和远期疗效。方法选取本院2009年8月~2011年8月收治急性心肌梗死患者90例,将患者采用随机数字表法分为观察组与对照组,每组45例。观察组患者采取成功介入治疗,对照组采取成功溶栓治疗,比较两组临床疗效,并进行随访比较两组远期疗效。结果观察组患者在入院6 d心电图检查左室射学分数显著优于对照组(P<0.05)差异具有统计学意义。并分别于6周和12周进行随访两组患者生存率比较,观察组患者显著高于对照组(P<0.05)差异具有统计学意义。结论在急性心肌梗死患者采取支架介入治疗对心肌梗死改善显著优于溶栓治疗,值得临床广泛应用及推广。
Objective To analyze the short-term and long-term effects of successful interventional therapy and successful thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods Totally 90 patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to our hospital from August 2009 to August 2011 were randomly divided into observation group and control group with 45 cases in each group. The patients in the observation group were treated successfully, the control group were treated with thrombolytic therapy, and the clinical efficacy was compared between the two groups. The long-term efficacy was compared between the two groups. Results In the observation group, the left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly better than the control group (P <0.05) on the 6th day after admission. The survival rates of patients in observation group were significantly higher than those in control group (P <0.05). The difference was statistically significant. Conclusion The improvement of myocardial infarction in patients with AMI is better than thrombolytic therapy in stenting. It deserves wide application and promotion in clinic.