四川医学
四川醫學
사천의학
Sichuan Medical Journal
2015年
8期
1156-1159
,共4页
起搏器%心肌梗死%PCI%预后%影响
起搏器%心肌梗死%PCI%預後%影響
기박기%심기경사%PCI%예후%영향
pacemaker%myocardial infarction%PCI%prognosis%influence
目的 探究预防性应用临时起搏器对急性下壁心肌梗死( AIMI)急诊PCI(冠状动脉介入治疗术)预后的影响. 方法 择取我院2012年9月至2014年9月收治的接受急诊PCI治疗的101例急性下壁心肌梗死患者为临床研究对象,以未应用临时起搏器的79例患者为对照组,行临时起搏的22例患者为试验组,观察两组患者冠状动脉病变特征及再灌注前后血压、药物应用情况,并探究心血管事件发生状况. 结果 试验组心血管事件发生率(45. 45% vs. 56. 96%)明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0. 05),再灌注后低血压发生率(40. 90% vs. 46. 84%)与对照组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0. 05),再灌注后低血压者用药率(40. 90% vs. 46. 84%)较对照组差异无统计学意义(P>0. 05),且再灌注后SBP[(93.94 ±27.48)mmHg vs. (104.66 ±26.11)mmHg]、DBP[(59.87 ±17.96)mmHg vs. (61.58 ±16.20)mmHg]均明显下降,差异有统计学意义(P<0. 05). 结论 临时起搏对再灌注反应无显著性保护作用,对再灌注低血压恢复及药物应用时间无明显影响,临床上应引起足够重视.
目的 探究預防性應用臨時起搏器對急性下壁心肌梗死( AIMI)急診PCI(冠狀動脈介入治療術)預後的影響. 方法 擇取我院2012年9月至2014年9月收治的接受急診PCI治療的101例急性下壁心肌梗死患者為臨床研究對象,以未應用臨時起搏器的79例患者為對照組,行臨時起搏的22例患者為試驗組,觀察兩組患者冠狀動脈病變特徵及再灌註前後血壓、藥物應用情況,併探究心血管事件髮生狀況. 結果 試驗組心血管事件髮生率(45. 45% vs. 56. 96%)明顯低于對照組,差異有統計學意義(P<0. 05),再灌註後低血壓髮生率(40. 90% vs. 46. 84%)與對照組比較差異無統計學意義(P>0. 05),再灌註後低血壓者用藥率(40. 90% vs. 46. 84%)較對照組差異無統計學意義(P>0. 05),且再灌註後SBP[(93.94 ±27.48)mmHg vs. (104.66 ±26.11)mmHg]、DBP[(59.87 ±17.96)mmHg vs. (61.58 ±16.20)mmHg]均明顯下降,差異有統計學意義(P<0. 05). 結論 臨時起搏對再灌註反應無顯著性保護作用,對再灌註低血壓恢複及藥物應用時間無明顯影響,臨床上應引起足夠重視.
목적 탐구예방성응용림시기박기대급성하벽심기경사( AIMI)급진PCI(관상동맥개입치료술)예후적영향. 방법 택취아원2012년9월지2014년9월수치적접수급진PCI치료적101례급성하벽심기경사환자위림상연구대상,이미응용림시기박기적79례환자위대조조,행림시기박적22례환자위시험조,관찰량조환자관상동맥병변특정급재관주전후혈압、약물응용정황,병탐구심혈관사건발생상황. 결과 시험조심혈관사건발생솔(45. 45% vs. 56. 96%)명현저우대조조,차이유통계학의의(P<0. 05),재관주후저혈압발생솔(40. 90% vs. 46. 84%)여대조조비교차이무통계학의의(P>0. 05),재관주후저혈압자용약솔(40. 90% vs. 46. 84%)교대조조차이무통계학의의(P>0. 05),차재관주후SBP[(93.94 ±27.48)mmHg vs. (104.66 ±26.11)mmHg]、DBP[(59.87 ±17.96)mmHg vs. (61.58 ±16.20)mmHg]균명현하강,차이유통계학의의(P<0. 05). 결론 림시기박대재관주반응무현저성보호작용,대재관주저혈압회복급약물응용시간무명현영향,림상상응인기족구중시.
Objective To explore the application of temporary pacemaker:prevention of acute inferior myocardial infarc-tion ( AIMI) and PCI( emergency coronary artery interventional therapy) prognosis. Methods Selected 101 cases of acute inferi-or myocardial infarction patients in our hospital from September 2012 to September 2014 treated in emergency PCI treatment as clinical research object,79 cases with no application of temporary pacemaker patients as control group,22 cases of temporary cardi-ac pacing patients as experimental group,observing coronary artery disease characteristics and reperfusion blood pressure,drug appli-cation and research status,cardiovascular events of two groups. Results In experimental group,the incidence rate of cardiovascular events(45. 45% vs 56. 96%) was significantly lower than that of the control group(P<0. 05),after reperfusion,hypotension rate (40. 90% vs 46. 84%) there was no significant difference compared with control group(P>0. 05),hypotension rate of medication after reperfusion(40. 90% vs 46. 84%) had no evident change compared to control group(P>0. 05),SBP[(93. 94 ± 27. 48)mmHg vs.(104.66±26.11)mmHg],DBPafterreperfusion[(59.87±17.96)mmHgvs. (61.58±16.20)mmHg]weresignificantlyde-creased(P<0. 05). Conclusion Temporary pacing on reperfusion reaction had no significant protective effect, no obvious effect on the recovery of reperfusion hypotension and drug application time, clinical attention should be paid.
