AngioJet血栓清除与置管溶栓治疗急性股动脉缺血的疗效对比

Comparison of curative effects between Angiojet thrombectomy and catheter thrombolysis in treatment of acute femoral artery ischemia

目的探讨AngioJet血栓清除与置管溶栓治疗急性股动脉缺血的疗效.方法选取2017年12月—2018年8月沧州市人民医院收治的急性股动脉缺血患者64例,随机分成对照组与观察组.其中对照组32例患者接受置管溶栓术治疗.观察组32例接受AngioJet血栓清除术治疗.比较两组患者手术时间、下床时间、住院时间、住院费用、恢复日常生活时间、恢复工作时间、疼痛情况、患侧冷感、临床疗效.结果观察组患者手术时间、住院费用高于对照组(P<0.05),恢复日常生活时间、恢复工作时间下床时间、住院时间明显少于对照组(P<0.05).治疗前两组患者疼痛评分差异比较无统计学意义(P>0.05).术后对照组与观察组患者疼痛评分较术前下降,其中观察组患者疼痛评分显著低于对照组(P<0.05).治疗前两组患者冷感评分差异比较无统计学意义(P>0.05).术后对照组与观察组患者冷感评分较术前下降,其中观察组患者冷感评分显著低于对照组(P<0.05).观察组患者临床总有效率显著高于对照组,两组患者临床疗效比较有差(χ^2=5.379,P=0.020).结论 An?gioJet血栓清除术与置管溶栓术治疗急性股动脉缺血各有优缺点,其中AngioJet血栓清除术能显著减少住院时间、提高治疗有效率、缓解术后疼痛及患侧冷感,但AngioJet血栓清除术的手术时间及住院费用较多,部分患者不易接受.

Objective To compare the curative effects of Angiojet thrombectomy and catheter thrombolysis in treatment of acute femoral artery ischemia. Methods Sixty-four patients with acute femoral artery ischemia were randomly divided into 2 equal groups: control group undergoing catheter thrombolysis and observation group undergoing Angiojet llirombectomy. The operation time, out-of-bed activity time, hospitalization time, hospitalization cost, time needed to restore daily life, time needed to restore work, pain score, cold sensitivity score at the affected side, and general clinical efficacy were compared between these two groups. Results The operation lime of the observation group was (66.24± 10.21) h, significantly longer than that of the control group [(56.47± 10.24) h, P<0.05]. The hospitalization cost of the observation group was (3641.25±89.25) yuan, significantly higher than that of the control group [(2641.24± 100.24) yuan, P < 0.05]. The hospitalization time, out-of-bed activity time, time needed to restore daily life, and time needed to restore work of the observation group were (1.2.61±1.32) d,(1.01 ±0.53) d,( 15.47±3.86) d, and (28.27±4.13) d respectively, all significantly shorter than those of the control group [(7.94± 1.65) d,(2.57±0.54) d,(20.41 ±3.24) d, and (35.64±3.22) d respectively, all Pv0.05].There was no significant difference in pain score between these two groups before treatment (P < 0.05). The pain scores of both groups decreased after treatment, and the pain score of the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in cold sensitivity score between these two groups before treatment (P < 0.05). The cold sensitivity scores of both groups decreased after treatment, and the cold sensitivity score of the observation group was (0.85±0.15), significantly lower than that of the control group [(1.29±0.21 ),),P < 0.05]. The total clinical effective rate of the observation group was 93.75 %, significantly highrt than that of the control gtoup (71.88. P < 0.05). Conclusion Angiojet thrombectomy significantly shortens the hospitalization time and improve the efficiency in treatment of acute femoral artery ischemia, however, with longer operation time and higher hospitalization expenses.