论文部分内容阅读
目的 :通过对急性心肌梗死病人进行院前溶栓和住院溶栓在时间上及疗效上的比较 ,发现前者的优越性。方法 :对 2 1例急性心肌梗死病人在急诊室进行静脉溶栓 ,观察疗效 ,并与随机统计的既往住院后溶栓的 19例心肌梗死病人比较。结果 :院前组发病到溶栓间隔时间 3 0min~ 12h ,再通率 76 0 %,临床治愈率 73 3 %,病死率 14 3 %;住院组发病到溶栓间隔时间 60分钟~12h ,再通率 73 6%,临床治愈率 68 4%,病死率 15 8%。时间上及疗效上前者优于或相当于后者。结论 :对急性心肌梗死病人进行静脉溶栓疗效肯定 ,安全可行。院前溶栓可以为患者争取时间 ,及早期解除痛苦
OBJECTIVE: To compare the advantages of the former in terms of the time and efficacy of prehospital thrombolysis and in-hospital thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Methods: Twenty-one patients with acute myocardial infarction were treated with intravenous thrombolysis in the emergency room and the curative effect was observed. The results were compared with those of 19 patients with myocardial infarction who had been previously randomized to be hospitalized for thrombolysis. Results: The incidence of thrombolysis in the prehospital group was 30 min to 12 h, and the recanalization rate was 76%. The clinical cure rate was 73.3% and the mortality rate was 14.3%. The incidence of thrombolysis in the hospitalized group was 60 minutes to 12 hours Through rate 73 6%, clinical cure rate 68 4%, case fatality rate 15 8%. Time and efficacy of the former is superior to or equivalent to the latter. Conclusion: It is safe and feasible to treat patients with acute myocardial infarction by intravenous thrombolysis. Pre-hospital thrombolysis can gain time for patients and relieve pain early