当代医学
噹代醫學
당대의학
CHINA CONTEMPORARY MEDICINE
2013年
7期
61-62
,共2页
急诊介入治疗%院前心脏骤停%急性心肌梗死
急診介入治療%院前心髒驟停%急性心肌梗死
급진개입치료%원전심장취정%급성심기경사
Emergency intervention%Prehospital cardiac arrest%Acute myocardial infarction
目的探讨急诊介入治疗与静脉溶栓治疗合并院前心脏骤停急性心肌梗死的临床疗效.方法224例患者均为2005年1月~2011年12月间收治急性心肌梗死且院前出现心脏骤停患者,随治疗方法不同分为介入组与溶栓组各112例,介入组选择急诊介入治疗,溶栓组选择静脉溶栓治疗.结果两组心力衰竭、再次休克及诱发出血发生率均低于溶栓组,且具有明显差异,P<0.05;严重心律失常发生率无明显差异,P>0.05.严重心律失常均为再通后引发.介入组成功抢救93(83.04%)例,失败19(16.96%)例,总有效率为83.04%;溶栓组成功抢救63(56.25%)例,失败49(43.75%)例,总有效率为56.25%,总有效率对比,差异明显,P<0.05.结论对于合并院前心脏骤停急性心肌梗死运用紧急介入治疗,疗效优越,且并发症明显降低,比溶栓治疗效果明显.
目的探討急診介入治療與靜脈溶栓治療閤併院前心髒驟停急性心肌梗死的臨床療效.方法224例患者均為2005年1月~2011年12月間收治急性心肌梗死且院前齣現心髒驟停患者,隨治療方法不同分為介入組與溶栓組各112例,介入組選擇急診介入治療,溶栓組選擇靜脈溶栓治療.結果兩組心力衰竭、再次休剋及誘髮齣血髮生率均低于溶栓組,且具有明顯差異,P<0.05;嚴重心律失常髮生率無明顯差異,P>0.05.嚴重心律失常均為再通後引髮.介入組成功搶救93(83.04%)例,失敗19(16.96%)例,總有效率為83.04%;溶栓組成功搶救63(56.25%)例,失敗49(43.75%)例,總有效率為56.25%,總有效率對比,差異明顯,P<0.05.結論對于閤併院前心髒驟停急性心肌梗死運用緊急介入治療,療效優越,且併髮癥明顯降低,比溶栓治療效果明顯.
목적탐토급진개입치료여정맥용전치료합병원전심장취정급성심기경사적림상료효.방법224례환자균위2005년1월~2011년12월간수치급성심기경사차원전출현심장취정환자,수치료방법불동분위개입조여용전조각112례,개입조선택급진개입치료,용전조선택정맥용전치료.결과량조심력쇠갈、재차휴극급유발출혈발생솔균저우용전조,차구유명현차이,P<0.05;엄중심률실상발생솔무명현차이,P>0.05.엄중심률실상균위재통후인발.개입조성공창구93(83.04%)례,실패19(16.96%)례,총유효솔위83.04%;용전조성공창구63(56.25%)례,실패49(43.75%)례,총유효솔위56.25%,총유효솔대비,차이명현,P<0.05.결론대우합병원전심장취정급성심기경사운용긴급개입치료,료효우월,차병발증명현강저,비용전치료효과명현.
Objective Explore the emergency interventional clinical efficacy of the combined pre-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with acute myocardial infarction, treatment with intravenous thrombolytic therapy. Methods 224 patients are in our hospital from January 2005 to December 2011 admitted with acute myocardial infarction and pre-hospital cardiac arrest patients, divided into 112 cases each in the intervention group and thrombolysis group, the intervention group with different treatment methods select emergencyinterventional treatment of thrombolysis group selection intravenous thrombolytic therapy. Results No significant difference between the two groups of heart failure, shock induced bleeding were lower than thrombolysis group again, and has a significant difference, P<0.05;serious incidence of arrhythmia, P>0.05. Serious arrhythmias are triggered recanalization. Intervention group successfully rescued the 93 (83.04%) patients failed the 19 (16.96%) cases, total effective rate was 83.04%;the thrombolysis group successful rescue of 63 (56.25%) patients, and failure of 49 (43.75%) cases, the total effective rate 56.25%, the total efficiency of contrast, the differences are significant (P<0.05). Conclusion Interventional treatment for acute myocardial infarction in the use of the combined pre-hospital cardiac arrest emergency, superior efficacy and complications significantly lower than the obvious effect of thrombolytic therapy.
