论文部分内容阅读
目的 比较尿激酶动、静脉溶栓治疗急性脑梗死的疗效和安全性。方法 5 0例急性脑梗死 (发病≤ 8h)患者分为动脉溶栓、静脉溶栓治疗组和对照组。采用美国国立卫生院神经功能缺失评分表 (NIHSS)于治疗前 ,治疗后 2 4h、1周、2周记录神经功能缺损程度。对临床症状恶化者复查头颅CT ,明确症状性颅内出血的发生率。结果 尿激酶溶栓治疗后 2 4h治疗组NIHSS低于对照组 (P <0 0 5 ) ,1周后差异更加显著(P <0 0 1) ,但溶栓治疗组之间 (经动脉或静脉溶栓 )NIHSS差异无显著意义 (P >0 0 5 )。三组症状性颅内出血的发生率分别为 6 6 7%、9 5 2 %和 14 2 9% ,无统计学差异 (P >0 0 5 )。结论 尿激酶溶栓治疗急性脑梗死疗效确切、安全 ,动脉溶栓的疗效并不优于静脉溶栓
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of dynamic and intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute cerebral infarction. Methods Fifty patients with acute cerebral infarction (incidence ≤ 8h) were divided into arterial thrombolysis, intravenous thrombolysis group and control group. Neurological deficit score (NIHSS) of the National Institutes of Health was recorded before and 24 hours, 1 week and 2 weeks after treatment. On the deterioration of clinical symptoms of head CT review, clear the incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Results NIHSS in the 24 h after thrombolytic therapy was lower than that in the control group (P <0.05), and the difference was more significant after 1 week (P <0.01) Thrombolysis) NIHSS difference was not significant (P> 0.05). The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the three groups was 66.7%, 95.2% and 142.9% respectively, with no significant difference (P> 0.05). Conclusions Urokinase thrombolysis is effective and safe in the treatment of acute cerebral infarction. Arterial thrombolysis is not superior to intravenous thrombolysis