论文部分内容阅读
目的对比分析急性心肌梗死静脉溶栓治疗与经皮延迟冠脉介入治疗疗效差异。方法选取78例急性心肌梗塞患者作为研究对象,随机分为观察组和对照组,观察组行静脉溶栓治疗,对照组采取经皮延迟冠脉介入治疗,比较2组临床疗效及预后情况。结果两组冠脉再通率对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但死亡率比较有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论静脉溶栓与经皮延迟冠脉介入治疗均能有效促进冠脉再通,但后者更利于改善心功能,远期预后尤佳,建议临床根据患者病情及治疗情况联合应用。
Objective To compare the curative effect between intravenous thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction and percutaneous delayed coronary intervention. Methods A total of 78 patients with acute myocardial infarction were selected as study subjects and randomly divided into observation group and control group. The observation group received intravenous thrombolytic therapy and the control group received percutaneous delayed coronary intervention. The clinical efficacy and prognosis of the two groups were compared. Results There was no significant difference in coronary recanalization rate between the two groups (P> 0.05), but the mortality rate was significantly different (P <0.05). Conclusion Both intravenous thrombolysis and percutaneous delayed coronary intervention can effectively promote recanalization of coronary artery. However, the latter is more conducive to improving cardiac function, especially long-term prognosis. It is suggested that the clinical application should be based on the patient’s condition and treatment.