治疗肺栓塞80例临床分析

Analysis of efficacy in treating pulmonary embolism of 80 cases

目的总结不同治疗方法对肺栓塞(PE)患者的疗效。方法回顾性分析74例PE患者临床资料,比较介入碎栓、溶栓+滤器置入(A组,11例)、抗凝+滤器置入(B组,20例)、抗凝(C组,30例)、静脉溶栓+滤器置入(D组,9例)、静脉溶栓+抗凝(E组,4例)五种方法的治疗效果。结果 A组临床改善时间较D组明显缩短[(1.64±0.05)d vs.(3.22±1.30)d](P<0.05);B组临床改善时间较C组缩短[(2.15±0.87)d vs.(6.50±2.74)d](P<0.05);D组临床改善时间较E组缩短[(3.22±1.30)d vs.(8.25±5.32)d](P<0.05)。结论介入溶栓效果优于静脉溶栓,滤器置入较抗凝或无滤器置入效果好。

Objective To summarize the efficacy of treating pulmonary embolism（PE） with different methods in 80 cases. Methods Data of 74 patients with PE were retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes were compared among five treatment methods of A（interventional fragmentation with thrombolysis and implantation of inferior vena cava filter, 11 cases）, B （anticoagulation and implantation of inferior vena cava filter, 20 cases）, C （anticoagulation, 30 cases）, D （venous thrombolysis and implantation of inferior vena cava filter, 9 cases） and E（venous thrombolysis and anticoagulation,4 cases）. Results The clinical improvement time was shorter in group A than that in group D[（1.64±0.05） d vs. （3.22±1.30） d]（P〈0. 05） ,which was shorter in group B than that in group C[（2. 15±0.87） d vs. （6.50 ± 2. 74） d] （P〈0. 05）, and which was shorter in group D than that in group El（3.22±1.30） d vs. （8.25±5.32） d]（P〈0. 05）. Conclusion Utilizing interventional fragmentation with thrombolysis to cure patients with PE achieves a better result than that of venous thrombolysis, and the therapeutic efficacy of implantation of inferior vena cava filter is also superior to that of either anticoagulation or no filter implantation.