论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨急性心肌梗死患者行急诊介入治疗的临床疗效。方法选取2012年4月至2013年4月在我院确诊为急性心肌梗死并行急诊介入治疗的30例患者为观察组,以同期确诊为急性心肌梗死并行溶栓治疗的30例患者为对照组,观察比较两组患者的梗塞冠脉再通率、病死率、住院时间、心血管事件发生率和心脏功能恢复情况。结果观察组梗塞冠脉再通率为96.7%(29/30)、对照组梗塞冠脉再通率为53.3%(16/30),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组患者的病死率、不良心血管事件发生率均显著低于对照组,住院时间明显短于对照组,而心脏功能恢复情况优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论急诊介入治疗是治疗急性心肌梗死的有效方法,梗塞血管再通率较高、不良心血管事件发生率较低、住院时间缩短、心脏功能恢复情况良好,值得临床推广应用。
Objective To investigate the clinical effect of emergency interventional therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods Thirty patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) diagnosed as concurrent emergency intervention in our hospital from April 2012 to April 2013 were selected as the observation group. Thirty patients with thrombolytic therapy of acute myocardial infarction diagnosed in the same period were selected as the control group, Observe and compare the recovery rate of infarction coronary artery, fatality rate, hospitalization time, incidence of cardiovascular events and recovery of cardiac function in the two groups. Results The rate of recanalization of the infarcted coronary artery in the observation group was 96.7% (29/30), and the rate of recanalization of the infarcted coronary artery in the control group was 53.3% (16/30). There was significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05) The mortality of patients and the rate of adverse cardiovascular events were significantly lower than those of the control group. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter than that of the control group, while the recovery of cardiac function was better than that of the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion Emergency intervention is an effective method for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. The rate of recanalization of infarction is high, the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events is low, the hospitalization time is shortened and the recovery of cardiac function is good. It is worthy of clinical application.