论文部分内容阅读
目的:剖析院内溶栓与急诊溶栓用于急性心肌梗死中的疗效。方法:择取该院2013年6月至2015年9月,接收的急性心肌梗死患者,共计50例。随机等分50例患者:实验与对照。前者行急诊溶栓治疗,后者行院内溶栓治疗。观察两组疗效,比较心脏事件发生率。结果:实验组血管再通率以及心脏事件发生率依次为80.0%、12.05,对照组为64.0%、32.0%。实验组明显优于对照组。两组对比,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:和院内溶栓法相比,急诊溶栓法在临床急性心肌梗死中具备更高的应用价值,既可提高血管再通率,又能减少心脏事件。
Objective: To analyze the efficacy of thrombolysis in hospital and emergency thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Methods: The hospital received from June 2013 to September 2015, received a total of 50 patients with acute myocardial infarction. Fifty patients were equally randomized: experiment and control. The former emergency thrombolytic therapy, the latter line of thrombolytic therapy. The curative effect was observed and the incidence of cardiac events was compared. Results: The rates of recanalization and cardiac events were 80.0% and 12.05 in the experimental group and 64.0% and 32.0% in the control group, respectively. The experimental group was significantly better than the control group. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion: Compared with thrombolysis in hospital, emergency thrombolysis has higher value in clinical acute myocardial infarction, which can not only improve the recanalization rate but also reduce the cardiac events.