期刊文献+

STEMI病人不同就诊方式对急诊PCI术临床效果的影响 被引量:1

下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的比较常规就诊、"120"来院、来院前启动及即时通讯平台提前启动就诊方式对于急诊经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)术治疗急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)病人的临床效果。方法选取2015年3月-2017年9月十堰市人民医院急诊收治的STEMI病人共122例,根据就诊方式差异分为A组(29例)、B组(40例)、C组(32例)及D组(21例),分别采用常规就诊、"120"来院、来院前启动及即时通讯平台提前启动就诊方式。比较4组病人入院至导管室所需时间、签署知情同意书所需时间、门-球时间及门-球时间达标率。结果C组、D组病人入院至导管室时间和签署知情同意书所需时间均明显短于A组、B组(P<0.05);B组病人签署知情同意书所需时间明显长于A组(P<0.05);C组、D组病人门-球时间和门-球时间达标率均明显优于A组、B组(P<0.05)。结论急诊STEMI病人来院前启动和即时通讯平台提前启动就诊方式可有效缩短抢救所需时间,提高门-球时间达标率,效果优于常规就诊和"120"来院就诊方式。
出处 《中西医结合心脑血管病杂志》 2020年第9期1489-1491,共3页 Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine on Cardio-Cerebrovascular Disease
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献29

  • 1李玉彬,张春明,王德芝.重组人心肌肌钙蛋白Ⅰ基因工程菌的构建[J].临床检验杂志,2007,25(4):273-275. 被引量:5
  • 2Collaborative Research Group of Reperfusion Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction.重组葡激酶与重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂治疗急性心肌梗死的随机多中心临床试验[J].中华心血管病杂志,2007,35(8):691-696. 被引量:43
  • 3Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery ( EACTS ), European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), Wijns W, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J,2010 , 31:2501-2555.
  • 4Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/ SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines and the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions. Circulation, 2011, 124 :e574-651.
  • 5Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines, developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coil Cardiol, 2011,58 :e123-210.
  • 6Nashef SA, Roques F, Michel P, et al. European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation ( EuroSCORE ). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 1999,16:9-13.
  • 7Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med, 2009,360:961- 972.
  • 8Peterson ED, Dai D, DeLong ER, et al. Contemporary mortality risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 588,398 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coil Cardiol,2010,55:1923-1932.
  • 9Online STS fish calculator [ S/OL]. [ 2012-01-01 ]. http:// riskcalc, sts. org/STSWebRiskCalc273/de, aspx.
  • 10Mehta SR, Tanguay JF, Eikelboom JW, et al. Double-dose versus standard-dose clopidogrel and high-dose versus low-dose aspirin in individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes ( CURRENT-OASIS 7 ): a randomised factorial trial. Lancet,2010,376 : 1233-1243.

共引文献2689

同被引文献11

引证文献1

二级引证文献8

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