摘要
目的:比较急诊经皮冠状动脉腔内成形术PTCA与溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死AMI的临床疗效。方法:46例AMI患者,21例行急诊PTCA治疗,25例行溶栓治疗。结果:急诊PTCA组梗死相关血管IRA成功开通的有20例,成功率为95%;溶栓组IRA再通有17例,成功率为68%,两组比较,P<0.01。出院前左心室射血分数LVEF急诊PTCA组为0.53±0.10,溶栓组为0.54±0.16,病死率分别为5%和4%,两组间差异无显著性P>0.05。急诊PTCA组的平均费用明显比溶栓组高P<0.05。结论:急诊PTCA与溶栓治疗AMI患者,可使IRA充分有效地开通,故在条件允许的医院,可优先考虑行急诊PTCA治疗AMI。
Objective:To compare the efficacy of direct angioplasty with intravenous thrombolysis in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods:Forty six patients with AMI underwent either intravenous thrombolytic therapy (25 patients) or direct angioplasty (21 patients) were studied. Cardiac function (left ventricular ejection fraction,LVEF) was assessed during hospitalization by echocardiography. Results:The recanalizing rate of infarct related artery (IRA) was 68% in patients with thrombolytic therapy and 95% in those with direct angioplasty. There were no significant differences in age, risk factors, duration from onset of symptom and infarct location between the two groups. Conclusion: PTCA is more effective than intravenous thrombolysis in treatment of AMI since it is more likely to have successful IRA recanalization.
出处
《新医学》
北大核心
2001年第9期532-534,共3页
Journal of New Medicine
关键词
急性心肌梗死
急诊
经皮冠状动脉腔内成形术
溶栓疗法
治疗
疗效比较
Angioplasty, transluminal, percutaneous coronary Thrombolytic therapy Left ventricular ejection fractionMyocardial infarction Comparative study
