目的:观察常规西医结合活血化瘀法治疗高血压性脑出血急性期临床疗效。方法:随机选取2014年1月~2016年6月间本院收治的高血压性脑出血急性期患者144例,男女分别为90例和54例;年龄40~72岁,平均年龄为(61.23±10.42)。根据随机分组法分为两组,即A组为研究组72例,B组为参照组72例,A组采用西医联合中医方案和西医治疗方案,B组采用西医治疗方案。最后对A、B两组治疗结果进行分析对比。结果:A、B两组患者急性期的总有效率分别为50.23%和31.36%,A组高于B组,且差异有意义(P<0.05)。A、B两组患者发病3个月后的总有效率分别为89.46%和80.55%,A组比B组高,且差异有意义(P<0.05)。A、B两组患者发病3个月后改良Rankin量表评分对比差异有意义(P<0.05),A、B两组发病3个月和治疗21d差值对比有意义(P<0.05),且A组病残程度改善情况比B组患者好。A、B两组存在0.1~10cm~3范围血肿的患者分别为38例和36例;10~50cm~3范围范围血肿的患者分别为32例和34例。A、B两组在0.1~10cm~3范围血肿对比中差异无意义(P>0.05);在10~50cm~3范围血肿对比中差异有意义(P<0.05),且A组血肿体积消减情况比B组效果好。A、B两组患者治疗前和治疗后7天水肿体积,差异无意义(P>0.05)。A、B两组患者治疗后21天、发病3个月、及两者的差值Barthel量表评分对比,差异均没有意义(P>0.05)。A、B两组患者的NIHSS量表评分,治疗前、治疗后1天、15天、21天的对比差异意义(P>0.05),而发病3个月的对比差异有意义(P<0.05),A组的治疗情况比B组好。A、B两组患者在治疗后15天瘀血证积分为2.44±3.14、4.59±4.65,A组低于B组,差异有意义(P<0.05)。结论:A组治疗比B组治疗效果显著,治疗效率高、有效地改善了患者的病残情况,值得推广。 Objective: To observe the clinical efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine combined with promoting blood circulation and removing blood stasis in the treatment of acute cerebral hemorrhage. Methods: A total of 144 patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage admitted in our hospital from January 2014 to June 2016 were randomly selected, which were 90 and 54 respectively. The mean age was (40 ± 72) years old and (61.23 ± 10.42). According to the random grouping method, the patients were divided into two groups: group A was 72 cases in study group, group B was reference group in 72 cases, group A was treated with western medicine combined with traditional Chinese medicine and western medicine, while group B was treated with western medicine. Finally, the results of A and B treatment were analyzed and compared. Results: The total effective rates of A and B patients in acute phase were 50.23% and 31.36%, respectively, while those in A group were higher than those in B group (P <0.05). The total effective rates of A and B patients after 3 months of onset were 89.46% and 80.55%, respectively. A group was higher than B group, and the difference was significant (P <0.05). A, B two groups of patients after 3 months of onset of improvement Rankin scale score difference was significant (P <0.05), A, B two groups of onset of 3 months and 21d difference was significant (P <0.05), and The improvement of the degree of sickness in group A was better than that in group B. There were 38 cases and 36 cases in group A and B with hematoma ranging from 0.1 to 10 cm ~ 3, respectively. There were 32 cases and 34 cases with hematoma in 10 ~ 50 cm ~ 3 range. There was no significant difference in hematoma between A and B in the range of 0.1 ~ 10cm ~ 3 (P> 0.05), while there was significant difference in hematoma between 10 ~ 50cm ~ 3 (P <0.05) Better effect than B group. The volume of edema in groups A and B before treatment and 7 days after treatment was insignificant (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the 21 days after treatment, the onset of 3 months, and the difference between the two in the Barthel scale (P> 0.05). NIHSS scores of A and B groups were significant difference (P> 0.05) before treatment, 1 day, 15 days and 21 days after treatment, but the difference was significant at 3 months after onset (P <0.05) , A group of treatment better than the B group. The scores of blood stasis syndrome in group A and group B were 2.44 ± 3.14 and 4.59 ± 4.65 respectively 15 days after treatment, and the difference between group A and group B was significant (P <0.05). Conclusion: The treatment of group A is more effective than group B, and the treatment efficiency is high, which effectively improves the patient ’s disability and is worth promoting.