急性心肌梗死紧急处理措施探讨

Analysis on emergercy measures for acute myocardial infarction.

目的 采取不同的急救措施 ,探索心肌梗死的治疗效果。方法 将 12 6例患者分成非溶栓治疗组 (37例 )、6h以内溶栓治疗组 (49例 )、6h以后溶栓治疗组 (40例 )。治疗后进行各组冠状动脉再通、心脏事件和并发症的比较。结果 溶栓治疗和非溶栓治疗组 ,冠状动脉再通、心脏事件及并发症的比较P <0 .0 1、P <0 .0 5。 6h以内溶栓治疗组和 6h以后溶栓治疗组 ,冠状动脉再通、心脏事件及并发症的比较P <0 .0 5、P >0 .0 5。结论 急性心肌梗死早期采取溶栓治疗效果比较理想 ,而溶栓治疗的时间窗并不一定限制在 6h以内。对身体状况好 ,又适应溶栓治疗的患者 ,仍以积极溶栓治疗为原则 。

Objective To investigate the effectiveness of defferent emergency measures for acute myocardial infarction.Methods 126 cases of acute myocardial infarction were divided into non thrombolytic therapy group ( n =37), thrombolytic therapy group in 6 h ( n =49) and thrombolytic therapy group after 6 h ( n =40). Coronary reopen, heart event and complications were compared among the three groups after treatment.Results There was significant difference in the coronary reopen, heart event and omplications between thrombolytic therapy group and non thrombolytic therapy group ( P < 0.01 , P < 0.05 ). There was significant difference in the coronary reopen between thrombolytic therapy group in 6 h and thrombolytic therapy group after 6 h ( P < 0.05 ).Conclusion The effectiveness of early thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction was satisfactory. Time window of throbmolytic therapy does not limit in 6 h. Some patients who have better physical state and can adapt to thrombolytic therapy should take active thrombolytic therapies as the principle.