期刊文献+

老年ST段抬高性心肌梗死急诊介入治疗的临床疗效分析 被引量:3

Analysis of clinical efficacy of emergency intervention therapy for elderly patients with STEMI
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的观察ST段抬高性心肌梗死老年患者急诊介入治疗的临床疗效。方法随机抽取2012年6月~2013年6月就诊的ST段抬高性心肌梗死老年患者35例作为研究对象(观察组),同期选择ST段抬高性心肌梗死非老年患者32例作为对照(对照组),回顾分析两组患者临床基本资料和术后6个月随访资料,对两组患者的手术情况、临床疗效和随访情况进行对比分析。结果观察组PCI手术成功率为97.14%,对照组成功率为96.88%,差异无统计学意义(P〉0.05);观察组术后LVEF明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P〈0.01);观察组术后主要心脏不良事件(MACE)发生率为17.14%,对照组为3.13%,差异无统计学意义(P〉0.05);而随访期观察组MACE的发生率为45.71%,对照组为18.75%,差异有统计学意义(P〈0.05)。结论老年ST段抬高性心肌梗死比非老年患者具有高危性,虽然急诊介入手术的成功率较高,但通过随访得知远期疗效较差,预后不良。 Objective To observe clinical efficacy of emergency intervention therapy for elderly patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods 35 elderly patients with STEMI treated from June,2012 to June,2013 in our hospital were randomly selected as observation group, while 32 younger patients with STEMI during the same period were selected as control group. Then, basic clinical data of the two groups and follow-up visit data 6 months after treatment were retrospectively analyzed. Besides, surgeries clinical effects and follow-up visits were compared between groups.Results Success rate of PCI in the observation group was 97.14% ,not significantly different from that(96.88% ) of the control group ( P 〉0.05). After treatment, LVEF of the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group, so the difference was statistically significant( P 〈0.01 ).Incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) of the observation group after operation was 17.14% ,and that of the control group was 3.13%, so the difference was not statistically significant( P 〉0.05). And during follow-up visits, incidence of MACE of the observation group was 45.71%, and that of the control group was 18. 75%, so the difference was statistically significant( P 〈0.05).Conclusion The elderly patients with STEMI have a higher risk than younger patients. Although the success rate of emergency intervention therapy is higher, the follow-up visits show that long-term curative effect and prognosis are relatively poor.
出处 《右江医学》 2015年第1期43-45,共3页 Chinese Youjiang Medical Journal
关键词 老年 心肌梗死 ST段抬高 急诊介入 不良心脏事件 the elderly myocardial infarction STEMI emergency intervention adverse cardiac event
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献43

  • 1张立新,马长生,高国旺,张学坤,郭金成,张海斌.高龄急性心肌梗死患者的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗[J].临床心血管病杂志,2004,20(10):628-630. 被引量:5
  • 2陆建辉,洪小苏,徐卫亭.急性心肌梗死介入治疗与溶栓治疗的疗效比较[J].苏州大学学报(医学版),2006,26(3):417-420. 被引量:10
  • 3Ryan TJ,Antman EM,Brooks NH.1999 update:ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction:executive summary and recommendations.A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction).Circulation,1999,100:1016-1030.
  • 4Zahn R,Schiele R,Schneider S.Primary angioplasty vs intravenous thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction.,can we define subgroups of patients benefiting most from primary angioplasty? Results from the pooled data of the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction and Myocardial Infarction Registry.J Am Coil Cardiol,2001,37:1827-1835.
  • 5Maillard L,Hamon M,Khalife K.A comparison of systematic stenting and conventional balloon angioplasty during primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction.J Am Coll Cardiol,2000,35:1729-1736.
  • 6The GRACE Investigators.Rational and design of the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) Project:a multinational registry of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes.Am Heart J,2001,141:190-199.
  • 7Tungsubutra W,Tresukosol D,Krittayaphong R.Primary percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention compared with intravenous thrombolysis in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction.J Med Assoc Thai,2007,90:672-678.
  • 8Dryja T,Kornacewicz-Jach Z,Goracy J.Treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctionin West Pomerania province of Poland.Comparison between primary coronary intervention and thrombolytic therapy.Kardiol Pol,2006,64:591-599.
  • 9Keeley EC,Boura JA,Grines CL.Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction:a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials.Lancet,2003,361:13-20.
  • 10Cucherat M,Bonnefoy E,Tremeau G.WITHDRAWN:primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction.Cochrane Database Syst Rev,2007,18:CD001560.

共引文献26

同被引文献26

引证文献3

二级引证文献10

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