中外医疗
中外醫療
중외의료
China Foreign Medical Treatment
2015年
25期
126-127
,共2页
溶栓%急性心肌梗死%瑞替普酶%尿激酶
溶栓%急性心肌梗死%瑞替普酶%尿激酶
용전%급성심기경사%서체보매%뇨격매
Thrombolytic therapy%Acute myocardial infarction%Reteplase%Urokinase
目的：评价瑞替普酶和尿激酶治疗急性心肌梗死(acute myocardial infarction, AMI)的疗效性和安全性。方法随机选取2012年1月-2013年12月北京市多家医院急诊室治疗的AMI患者120例,随机分为瑞替普酶组和尿激酶组,均无溶栓禁忌症,在常规治疗基础上分别给予瑞替普酶和尿激酶。比较两组的临床疗效、并发症发生率及溶栓后再通率。结果瑞替普酶组总有效率(86.67%)明显高于尿激酶组(71.67%),差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组治疗后30 min和120 min溶栓后再通率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),而60 min和90 min溶栓后再通率明显高于尿激酶组,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。瑞替普酶组和尿激酶组的出血发生率分别为6.67%和18.33%,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与尿激酶相比,瑞替普酶治疗AMI,溶栓后再通率迅速、并发症少、临床疗效高。
目的：評價瑞替普酶和尿激酶治療急性心肌梗死(acute myocardial infarction, AMI)的療效性和安全性。方法隨機選取2012年1月-2013年12月北京市多傢醫院急診室治療的AMI患者120例,隨機分為瑞替普酶組和尿激酶組,均無溶栓禁忌癥,在常規治療基礎上分彆給予瑞替普酶和尿激酶。比較兩組的臨床療效、併髮癥髮生率及溶栓後再通率。結果瑞替普酶組總有效率(86.67%)明顯高于尿激酶組(71.67%),差異具有統計學意義(P<0.05)。兩組治療後30 min和120 min溶栓後再通率比較差異無統計學意義(P>0.05),而60 min和90 min溶栓後再通率明顯高于尿激酶組,差異均具有統計學意義(P<0.05)。瑞替普酶組和尿激酶組的齣血髮生率分彆為6.67%和18.33%,差異具有統計學意義(P<0.05)。結論與尿激酶相比,瑞替普酶治療AMI,溶栓後再通率迅速、併髮癥少、臨床療效高。
목적：평개서체보매화뇨격매치료급성심기경사(acute myocardial infarction, AMI)적료효성화안전성。방법수궤선취2012년1월-2013년12월북경시다가의원급진실치료적AMI환자120례,수궤분위서체보매조화뇨격매조,균무용전금기증,재상규치료기출상분별급여서체보매화뇨격매。비교량조적림상료효、병발증발생솔급용전후재통솔。결과서체보매조총유효솔(86.67%)명현고우뇨격매조(71.67%),차이구유통계학의의(P<0.05)。량조치료후30 min화120 min용전후재통솔비교차이무통계학의의(P>0.05),이60 min화90 min용전후재통솔명현고우뇨격매조,차이균구유통계학의의(P<0.05)。서체보매조화뇨격매조적출혈발생솔분별위6.67%화18.33%,차이구유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론여뇨격매상비,서체보매치료AMI,용전후재통솔신속、병발증소、림상료효고。
Objective To explore the clinical effects and security of reteplase (rPA) and urokinase (UK) in the treatment of AIM. Methods A total of 120 patients with AIM after emergency operation from 2012 January to 2013 December were randomly divided into group rPA and group UK, which all have no contraindications to thrombolysis. Patients in group rPA and group UK were given separately rPA and UK except routine therapy. Clinical effects, complication rate and recanalization rate after thrombolytic treat-ment were analyzed. Results The total effective rate of group rPA (86.67%) was obviously higher than of group UK (71.67%) (P<0.05). The statistically significant different of the recanalization rate was noticed in 30 minutes compared with 120 minutes after thrombolytic treatment (P<0.05). However, it was not clear that the recanalization rate in 60 minutes after thrombolytic treatment compared with 90 minutes (P>0.05). The rate of hemorrhage was significantly decreased in rPA group (6.67%) compared with group UK (18.33%) (P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with UK, rPA has good curative effect with AMI and are less complications. Besidesthe recanalization rate of rPA was higher after thrombolytic treatment.
