CAJ | 학술논문

目的探讨糖尿病患者静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗塞临床近期疗效。方法冠心病监护病房(CCU)收治的182例急性心肌梗塞患者，分成糖尿病(DM-AMI)组、非糖尿病(NDM-AMI)组。其中DM-AMI组66例、NDM-AMI组116例。两组同时给予国产尿激酶静脉溶栓治疗。结果①DM-AMI组住院病死率为15.15％，明显高于NDM-AMI组的6.03％(χ2=4.17，P＜0.05);DM-AMI组静脉尿激酶溶栓治疗梗塞相关血管(IRA)的再通率为45.45％，明显低于NDM-AMI组的62.93％(χ2=5.23，P＜0.05)，②DM-AMI组静脉血糖(BS)、肌酐(CR)、尿素氮(BUN)、胆固醇(TC)和甘油三酯(TG)浓度均显著高于NDM-AMI组(P＜0.01，P＜0.05);③DM-AMI组合并症明显高于NDM-AMI组，尤以心力衰竭最显著(36.36％vs 12.97％，χ2=13.72，P＜0.001)，其次为心源性休克(16.67％vs 6.03％，χ2=5.33，P＜0.05)。结论静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗塞对非糖尿病患者合并急性心肌梗塞近期疗效显著，但对于糖尿病患者合并的急性心肌梗塞近期疗效不明显。
목적탐토당뇨병환자정맥용전치료급성심기경새림상근기료효。방법관심병감호병방(CCU)수치적182례급성심기경새환자，분성당뇨병(DM-AMI)조、비당뇨병(NDM-AMI)조。기중DM-AMI조66례、NDM-AMI조116례。량조동시급여국산뇨격매정맥용전치료。결과①DM-AMI조주원병사솔위15.15％，명현고우NDM-AMI조적6.03％(χ2=4.17，P＜0.05);DM-AMI조정맥뇨격매용전치료경새상관혈관(IRA)적재통솔위45.45％，명현저우NDM-AMI조적62.93％(χ2=5.23，P＜0.05)，②DM-AMI조정맥혈당(BS)、기항(CR)、뇨소담(BUN)、담고순(TC)화감유삼지(TG)농도균현저고우NDM-AMI조(P＜0.01，P＜0.05);③DM-AMI조합병증명현고우NDM-AMI조，우이심력쇠갈최현저(36.36％vs 12.97％，χ2=13.72，P＜0.001)，기차위심원성휴극(16.67％vs 6.03％，χ2=5.33，P＜0.05)。결론정맥용전치료급성심기경새대비당뇨병환자합병급성심기경새근기료효현저，단대우당뇨병환자합병적급성심기경새근기료효불명현。
Objective The aim of this study was to observe the clinical effect of intravenous thrombolysis therapy on diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods In the coronary care unit (CCU) at our hospital, 182 of the patients with acute myocardial infarction were divided into two groups with (DM AMI) and without diabetes (NDM AMI). All patients were treated with intravenous thrombolysis therapy. Results ①Hospital mortality in DM AMI groups was 15 15%, and 6 03% in NDM AMI(χ 2=4 17,P<0 05).The reperfusion rate of infarct related artery (IRA) was 45 45% in DM AMI groups, and 62 93% in NDM AMI groups (χ 2=5 23,P<0 05).②BS、CR、BUN、TC and TG in DM AMI groups were significantly higher than in NDM AMI groups (P<0 001、P<0 05).③Complications of AMI were significantly higher in DM AMI groups than in NDM AMI, with left ventricular failure significantly higher (36 36% vs 12 97%,χ 2=13 72,P<0 001) and cardial shock significantly higher (16 67% vs 6 03%,χ 2=5 33,P<0 05).Conclusion This study showed that intravenous thrombolysis therapy exerted a beneficial effect on the early term prognosis of AMI patients without diabetes. But for the patients with diabetes intravenous thrombolysis therapy did not show a beneficial effect.