论文部分内容阅读
目的探究与分析阿替普酶与瑞替普酶在治疗急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死溶栓治疗中的临床疗效。方法 60例急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者,采取随机数字表法分为阿替普酶组与瑞替普酶组,每组30例。对比两组患者胸痛到溶栓及再通时间的分布情况、再通率、心律失常发生率、并发症发生率及病死率。结果瑞替普酶组与阿替普酶组胸痛-就诊-溶栓时间为180 min、180~360 min、360~480 min的患者所占比例,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。瑞替普酶组与阿替普酶组再通时间为180 min、180~360 min的患者所占比例,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。瑞替普酶组与阿替普酶组的再通率相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。瑞替普酶组与阿替普酶组出现再灌注心律失常、出血、心力衰竭、死亡患者所占比例相比,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。瑞替普酶组与阿替普酶组所花费用相比,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论阿替普酶与瑞替普酶在治疗急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死溶栓治疗中均可取得显著的临床疗效,安全性较高,均可应用于临床工作中。
Objective To investigate and analyze the clinical efficacy of alteplase and reteplase in the treatment of thrombolytic therapy of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Methods Sixty patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly divided into alteplase group and reteplase group, with 30 cases in each group. The distribution of chest pain to thrombolysis and recanalization time, recanalization rate, incidence of arrhythmia, complication rate and mortality were compared between the two groups. Results There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with reteplase and alteplase between chest pain-treatment-thrombolysis time of 180 min, 180-360 min and 360-480 min (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference between the reteplase group and the alteplase group in 180 min and 180 ~ 360 min (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference between the reteplase group and alteplase group (P> 0.05). There were no significant differences between reteplase group and alteplase group in the proportion of reperfusion arrhythmia, bleeding, heart failure, and death patients (P> 0.05). The difference between the reteplase group and the alteplase group was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion Both alteplase and reteplase can achieve significant clinical efficacy in the treatment of thrombolytic therapy of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and they are safe and can be used in clinical practice.