论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨不同年龄组急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者静脉溶栓的疗效。方法比较不同年龄组AMI患者分别经静脉溶栓、一般内科治疗以及经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)3组心绞痛持续时间、病死率、心力衰竭发生率、梗死血管再通率、净有效率的差异。结果～60、～65、～70、～75岁年龄组间AMI病例静脉溶栓治疗的心绞痛持续时间、再通率、净有效率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);心绞痛持续时间较一般内科治疗同年龄组短(P<0.01);再通率平均63.24%,较PCI组低(P<0.05)。结论75岁以下AMI病例对静脉溶栓疗效的影响,其差异无统计学意义。故以年龄判定是否施行静脉溶栓治疗不尽合理。
Objective To investigate the curative effect of intravenous thrombolysis in patients of different ages with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods The duration of angina pectoris, mortality, the incidence of heart failure, the rate of recanalization of infarcts, the net effective rate of AMI in patients with AMI in different age groups by intravenous thrombolysis, general medical treatment and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) difference. Results The duration of angina pectoris, recanalization rate and net effective rate were no significant difference between ~ 60, ~ 65, ~ 70, and ~ 75 years old group (P> 0.05). The duration of angina pectoris was longer than normal The medical treatment was shorter in the same age group (P <0.01); the average recanalization rate was 63.24%, lower than that in the PCI group (P <0.05). Conclusion The effect of intravenous thrombolytic therapy on AMI patients under 75 years of age has no statistical significance. Therefore, to determine whether the age of intravenous thrombolytic therapy is not reasonable.