论文部分内容阅读
目的通过对介入法动脉灌注尿激酶与周围静脉药物溶栓治疗脑梗死的疗效分析，比较２种方法在脑梗死治疗中的价值。方法发病２４ｈ内的６２例脑梗死病人，２２例病人行介入法动脉溶栓，４０例病人行静脉滴注尿激酶溶栓，并在溶栓治疗后２ｈ、第７天、第２８天分别进行疗效评定。结果介入法溶栓组在溶栓后２ｈ的疗效评定明显优于静脉组（Ｐ＜０．０５），但在第７天及第２８天的疗效评定，２组无明显差异（Ｐ＞０．０５）。结论２种治疗脑梗死的溶栓疗法脑梗死的远期预后无明显差异。其所造成的出血等并发症无差异，而静脉溶栓由于其简便、易行及价格较低更易为病人接受。
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of two methods in the treatment of cerebral infarction by analyzing the curative effect of thrombolytic therapy with urokinase and peripheral venous thrombolysis after interventional arterial infusion. Methods Twenty-two patients with cerebral infarction within 24 hours after onset of thrombolytic therapy were enrolled in this study. Twenty-two patients underwent interventional thrombolysis with thrombolytic therapy and forty patients underwent thrombolysis with intravenous infusion of urokinase. The thrombolytic therapy was performed at 2 hours, 7 days and 28 days respectively Efficacy evaluation. Results The efficacy of interventional thrombolysis group at 2h after thrombolysis was significantly better than that of the intravenous group (P <0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the curative effect on the 7th day and the 28th day (P> 0.05). 05). Conclusion There is no significant difference in the long-term prognosis of two kinds of cerebral infarction treated by thrombolytic therapy. The bleeding and other complications caused by no difference, and intravenous thrombolysis because of its simplicity, ease and lower prices easier for the patient to accept.