论文部分内容阅读
41例AMI患者在溶栓过程中行冠状动脉造影，其中冠状动脉内溶栓14例，静脉溶栓27例。对冠脉再通与否进行了冠脉造影TIMI血流与临床指标的对比研究，临床四项指标为：溶栓开始后2小时内胸痛缓解，升高的ST段回降、出现再灌注心律失常及CK峰值的提前，旨在探讨临床指标评价血管再通的意义。本文分析了单项临床指标、两项、三项指标的不同组合及四项指标与血管再通与否的关系。结果表明：两项指标或以上评定血管再通的敏感性为96．9％，特异性87．5％，准确性95．1％。结论：临床无创指标评定血管再通与否是简便和可行的。
Forty-one AMI patients underwent coronary angiography during thrombolysis, including 14 cases of coronary thrombolysis and 27 cases of intravenous thrombolysis. Coronary recanalization or not underwent coronary angiography TIMI blood flow and clinical indicators of comparative study of four clinical indicators: chest pain relief within 2 hours after initiation of thrombolysis, elevated ST segment fallback, reperfusion arrhythmias Abnormalities and CK peak ahead of time, to explore the clinical significance of evaluation of recanalization. This article analyzes the single clinical indicators, two, three different combinations of indicators and four indicators and the relationship between recanalization or not. The results showed that the sensitivity of two indexes or above of recanalization was 96.9%, the specificity was 87.5% and the accuracy was 95.1%. CONCLUSION: It is simple and feasible to evaluate the noninvasive index of clinical outcome in patients with recanalization.