论文部分内容阅读
目的观察比较急性心肌梗死患者的冠状动脉介入治疗与静脉溶栓治疗的临床效果。方法方便选取2010年1月—2016年12月该院收治的210例急性心肌梗死患者,其中接受冠状动脉介入治疗105例,分为冠状动脉介入组(A组),接受静脉溶栓治疗105例,分为静脉溶栓组(B组)。比较两组的血管再通率、住院时间、左心室射血分数、左室舒张末期内径、心血管不良反应发生率和90 d病死率。结果 A组血管再通率和LVEF均高于B组;A组的心血管不良反应发生率和90 d病死率均低于B组;A组住院时间少于B组;A组的LVEDd小于B组,且各项比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论冠状动脉介入治疗能有效迅速地疏通相应阻塞血管,降低患者病死率,有助于其快速康复。
Objective To compare the clinical effects of coronary intervention and intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods Convenient Select 210 cases of acute myocardial infarction admitted to our hospital from January 2010 to December 2016, 105 patients undergoing coronary intervention were divided into coronary artery intervention group (group A), received intravenous thrombolysis in 105 cases , Divided into intravenous thrombolysis group (B group). The recanalization rate, length of hospital stay, left ventricular ejection fraction, end-diastolic diameter of end-diastole, incidence of adverse cardiovascular events and mortality at 90 days were compared between the two groups. Results The rates of recanalization and LVEF in group A were higher than those in group B. The incidence of adverse cardiovascular events and mortality at 90 days in group A were lower than those in group B. The hospitalization time in group A was less than that in group B. The LVEDd in group A was less than that in group B Group, and the differences were statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion Coronary intervention can effectively and quickly clear the corresponding obstruction of blood vessels, reduce the mortality of patients, and help its rapid recovery.