波立维和泰嘉在冠心病治疗中的疗效对比分析

Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy of Polivi and Taijia in the Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease

目的探究冠心病患者治疗过程中采用波立维与泰嘉的临床效果对比。方法选取的98例冠心病患者都来自该院2016年3月—2018年12月这一期间,并按照双盲法分为两组,对比组予以波立维治疗,实验组予以泰嘉治疗,并对两组患者治疗前后血小板计数、中性粒细胞计数、凝血酶原时间、活化部分凝血活酶时间、不良事件发生率、治疗费用以及住院时间进行对比。结果实验组与对比组患者治疗后血小板计数分别为(162.63±18.74)×10^9/L、(163.53±15.47)×10^9/L,与治疗前的(168.63±15.86)×10^9/L、(166.53±4.86)×10^9/L对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);实验组与对比组患者治疗后中性粒细胞计数分别为(5.98±0.75)×10^9/L、(5.87±0.53)×10^9/L,与治疗前的(6.35±1.14)×10^9/L、(6.07±1.25)×10^9/L对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);实验组与对比组患者治疗后凝血酶原时间分别为(15.63±1.35)s、(15.07±1.86)s,与治疗前的(15.26±1.07)s、(15.47±1.36)s对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);实验组与对比组患者治疗后活化部分凝血活酶时间分别为(44.63±2.04)s、(43.67±2.87)s,与治疗前的(45.17±2.86)s、(44.46±2.63)s对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);实验组患者不良事件发生率4.08%,与对比组患者6.12%的对比差异无统计学意义(χ^2=0.210 1,P=0.646 7);实验组患者平均治疗费用(4 970.23±1 106.53)元,对比组患者平均治疗费用(7 973.63±152.45)元,实验组患者平均治疗费用明显低于对比组,差异有统计学意义(t=18.628 9,P=0.000 0);实验组患者平均住院时间(15.86±1.45)d,对比组患者平均住院时间(15.46±1.35)d,两组患者平均住院时间的比较差异无统计学意义(t=1.398 8,P=0.165 2)。结论波立维与泰嘉对冠心病的治疗效果与安全性相当,但泰嘉的治疗费用比波立维低,可使患者的经济压力明显减轻,患者更容易接受。

Objective To investigate the clinical effects of Polivi and Taijia in the treatment of patients with coronary heart disease. Methods 98 patients with coronary heart disease were selected from the hospital from March 2016 to December 2018, and were divided into two groups according to the double-blind method. The control group was treated with Plavix, and the experimental group was treated with Taijia. Platelet counts, neutrophil counts, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, incidence of adverse events, treatment costs, and length of hospital stay were compared between the two groups. Results The platelet counts of the experimental group and the control group were (162.63±18.74)×10^9 /L,(163.53±15.47)×10^9 /L, respectively, and before treatment (168.63±15.86)×10^9 /L,(166.53± 4.86)×10^9 /L contrast was not statistically significant (P>0.05);the neutrophil counts in the experimental group and the control group were (5.98±0.75)×10^9 /L,(5.87±0.53)×10^9 /L, and there was no statistical significance compared with (6.35± 1.14)×10^9 /L and (6.07±1.25)×10^9 /L before treatment(P>0.05);experimental group of the prothrombin time after treatment was (15.63±1.35) s and (15.07±1.86) s, respectively, compared with the pre-treatment (15.26±1.07)s,(15.47±1.36)s (P> 0.05);the time of activation of partial thromboplastin after treatment in the experimental group and the control group were (44.63±2.04) s,(43.67±2.87) s, compared with the pre-treatment (45.17±2.86) s,(44.46±2.63) s was not statistically significant (P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time between the experimental group (4.08%) and the control group (6.12%)(t=1.908 4,1.2660,P=0.59 3,0.208 6);the incidence of adverse events in the experimental group had no statistically significant difference between the control group and the experimental group (χ^2 =0.210 1, P=0.646 7). The average treatment cost of the experimental group was (4 970.23±1 106.53) yuan, and the average treatment cost of the comparison group (7 973.63±152.45) yuan, the average treatment cost of the experimental group was significantly lower than that of the control group,the difference was statistically significant (t=18.628 9, P=0.000 0);the average hospitalization time of the experimental group (15.86±1.45)d, the average hospitalization time of the comparison group (15.46±1.35)d. There was no statistically significant difference in the average length of hospital stay between the patients(t=1.398 8, P=0.165 2). Conclusion The efficacy and safety of Polivi and Taijia for coronary heart disease are comparable, but the cost of treatment for Taijia is lower than that of Polivi, which can make the patient's economic pressure significantly reduced and the patient is more acceptable.