中国医学前沿杂志（电子版）
中國醫學前沿雜誌（電子版）
중국의학전연잡지（전자판）
CHINESE JOURNAL OF THE FRONTIERS OF MEDICAL SCIENCE(ELECTRONIC VERSION)
2014年
5期
39-41
,共3页
急性心肌梗死%静脉溶栓%冠状动脉介入%左室功能
急性心肌梗死%靜脈溶栓%冠狀動脈介入%左室功能
급성심기경사%정맥용전%관상동맥개입%좌실공능
Acute myocardial infarction%Intravenous thrombolysis%Coronary intervention%Left ventricular function
目的：研究急诊静脉溶栓与实施经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）对老年急性心肌梗死患者左室功能的影响。方法将本院2012年3月至2013年10月收治的112例老年急性心肌梗死患者作为研究对象，随机分为溶栓组与介入组，每组各56例；比较两组患者治疗前后左室功能的变化。结果患者治疗后舒张/收缩末期的左室内径均有所减小，与治疗前相比差异具有显著性（P＜0.01）；介入组上述指标的改善程度明显优于溶栓组（t＝1.2261，1.2478；P＝0.0000）；两组患者治疗后，左室短轴缩短率及射血分数均提高，与治疗前相比差异具有显著性（P＜0.01）；介入组上述指标的改善程度明显优于溶栓组（t＝9.4210，8.0536；P＝0.0000）；两组患者治疗后左室收缩压降低、舒张压升高；与治疗前相比差异具有显著性（P＜0.01）；介入组上述指标的改善程度优于溶栓组（t＝10.1770，3.8132；P＝0.0000，0.0001）。结论急诊静脉溶栓与实施PCI均能改善患者左室功能，PCI更优于静脉溶栓，均有一定的临床意义。
目的：研究急診靜脈溶栓與實施經皮冠狀動脈介入治療（PCI）對老年急性心肌梗死患者左室功能的影響。方法將本院2012年3月至2013年10月收治的112例老年急性心肌梗死患者作為研究對象，隨機分為溶栓組與介入組，每組各56例；比較兩組患者治療前後左室功能的變化。結果患者治療後舒張/收縮末期的左室內徑均有所減小，與治療前相比差異具有顯著性（P＜0.01）；介入組上述指標的改善程度明顯優于溶栓組（t＝1.2261，1.2478；P＝0.0000）；兩組患者治療後，左室短軸縮短率及射血分數均提高，與治療前相比差異具有顯著性（P＜0.01）；介入組上述指標的改善程度明顯優于溶栓組（t＝9.4210，8.0536；P＝0.0000）；兩組患者治療後左室收縮壓降低、舒張壓升高；與治療前相比差異具有顯著性（P＜0.01）；介入組上述指標的改善程度優于溶栓組（t＝10.1770，3.8132；P＝0.0000，0.0001）。結論急診靜脈溶栓與實施PCI均能改善患者左室功能，PCI更優于靜脈溶栓，均有一定的臨床意義。
목적：연구급진정맥용전여실시경피관상동맥개입치료（PCI）대노년급성심기경사환자좌실공능적영향。방법장본원2012년3월지2013년10월수치적112례노년급성심기경사환자작위연구대상，수궤분위용전조여개입조，매조각56례；비교량조환자치료전후좌실공능적변화。결과환자치료후서장/수축말기적좌실내경균유소감소，여치료전상비차이구유현저성（P＜0.01）；개입조상술지표적개선정도명현우우용전조（t＝1.2261，1.2478；P＝0.0000）；량조환자치료후，좌실단축축단솔급사혈분수균제고，여치료전상비차이구유현저성（P＜0.01）；개입조상술지표적개선정도명현우우용전조（t＝9.4210，8.0536；P＝0.0000）；량조환자치료후좌실수축압강저、서장압승고；여치료전상비차이구유현저성（P＜0.01）；개입조상술지표적개선정도우우용전조（t＝10.1770，3.8132；P＝0.0000，0.0001）。결론급진정맥용전여실시PCI균능개선환자좌실공능，PCI경우우정맥용전，균유일정적림상의의。
ObjectiveTo study the emergency treatment of intravenous thrombolysis and percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction effect of elderly patients with left ventricular function. MethodsFrom March 2012 to March 2013, 112 cases of elderly patients of acute myocardial infarction as the research object, were randomly divided into thrombolysis group and intervention group, each group had 56 cases;compared two groups before and after treatment in patients with left ventricular function.ResultsAfter treatment in patients with diastolic and systolic left interior diameter are reduced, and signiifcant difference compared with before treatment (P<0.01); the above indicators to improve the degree of intervention group was obviously superior to thrombolysis group (t=1.2261, 1.2478;P=0.0000).Two groups of patients after treatment, the rate of left ventricular short axis to shorten and ejection fraction were improved, compared with before treatment (P<0.01); the above indicators to improve the degree of intervention group was obviously superior to thrombolysis group (t=9.4210, 8.0536;P=0.0000). Two groups after treatment in patients with reduced left ventricular systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Signiifcant difference compared with before treatment (P<0.01); in the index was superior to improve thrombolysis group (t=10.1770, 3.8132;P=0.0000, 0.0001).ConclusionEmergency vein thrombolysis and percutaneous coronary intervention can improve left ventricular function in patients with the coronary intervention method is more better than intravenous thrombolysis, both have certain clinical signiifcance.
