期刊文献+

静脉溶栓与经皮介入治疗急性心肌梗死中期疗效比较 被引量:1

下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:比较直接经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)和静脉溶栓治疗ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死(STEMI)的中期疗效。方法:对59例STEMI患者行直接PCI(介入组,32例)或静脉溶栓(溶栓组,27例)治疗,比较两组梗死相关动脉开通率、平均住院天数、出院和6个月时左室射血分数及6个月时主要不良心脏事件发生率。结果:与溶栓组比较,介入组具有较高的梗死相关动脉开通率(100%vs 70.4%,P<0.05),平均住院天数减少[(9.6±7.1)d vs(18.8±12.1)d,P<0.05],出院及6个月时左室射血分数明显增高[分别为(58.5±10.7)%vs(49.3±12.8)%,P<0.01和(62.8±12.5)%vs(56.2±13.5)%,P<0.05],6个月时主要不良心脏事件发生率降低(9.4%vs 22.2%,P<0.05)。结论:与静脉溶栓比较,直接PCI治疗STEMI的中期疗效更佳。
出处 《广西医科大学学报》 CAS 北大核心 2006年第5期751-752,共2页 Journal of Guangxi Medical University
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

  • 1Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL, et al. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomized trials . Lancet, 2003, 361:13-20.
  • 2Weaver WD, Simes RJ, Betriu A, et al. Comparison of primary coronary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolyric therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review. JAMA,1997,278:2093-2098.
  • 3Widimsky P, Budesinsky T, Vorac D, et al. Long distance transport for primay angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Final results of the randomized national multicentre trial PRAGUE-2.Eur Heart J, 2003, 24:94-104.
  • 4Magid DJ, Calonge BN, Rumfeld JS, et al. Relations between hospital primary angioplasty volume and mortality for patients with AMI treated with primary angioplasty versus thrombolytic therapy. JAMA, 2000, 284:3131-3138.
  • 5Sheiban I, Fragasso G, Lu C, et al. Influence of treatment delay on long-term left ventricular function in patients with acute myocardial infarction successfully treated with primary angioplasty . Am Heart J,2001, 141:603-609.
  • 6Ottervanger JP, Liem A, De Boer MJ, et al. Limitation of myocardial infarct size after primary angioplasty: Is a higher patency the only mechanism? Am Heart J, 1999,137:1169-1172.

同被引文献3

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部