瑞替普酶溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死的临床效果
|
摘要
目的研究采用瑞替普酶对急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者进行溶栓治疗的效果。方法对2017年1月至2018年1月在我院进行溶栓治疗的102例AMI患者资料进行回顾性分析,根据治疗方法不同将其分为对照组和观察组,各51例。对照组采取尿激酶溶栓治疗,观察组采取瑞替普酶溶栓治疗。比较两组患者的治疗效果。结果观察组的治疗总有效率明显高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后,两组患者的BNP、CRP、TNF-α、IL-1水平均降低,且观察组低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后,两组LVDSD、LVEDD均减小,LVEF均升高,且观察组优于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组患者的并发症总发生率明显低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论采用瑞替普酶对AMI患者进行溶栓治疗效果显著,可明显促进血栓再通,且并发症较少,值得临床推广。
Objective To study the effect of thrombolytic therapy with reteplase on acute myocardial infarction. Methods The data of 102 patients with AMI who underwent thrombolytic therapy in our hospital from January 2017 to January 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different treatment methods, the patients were divided into control group and observation group, with 51 cases in each group. The control group was treated by thrombolytic therapy with urokinase,while the observation group was treated by thrombolytic therapy with reteplase. The therapeutic effects of the two groups were compared. Results The total effective rate of treatment in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group, the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). After treatment, the levels of BNP, CRP, TNF-α and IL-1 in the two groups decreased, and those of the observation group were lower than the control group, the differences were statistically significant(P <0.05). After treatment, the LVDSD and LVEDD decreased and LVEF increased in both groups, and those of the observation group were better than the control group(P<0.05). The total incidence of complications in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group, the difference was statistically significant(P <0.05). Conclusion Reteplase is effective in thrombolytic therapy for patients with AMI. It can obviously promote thrombosis recanalization and has fewer complications, which is worthy of clinical promotion.
Objective To study the effect of thrombolytic therapy with reteplase on acute myocardial infarction. Methods The data of 102 patients with AMI who underwent thrombolytic therapy in our hospital from January 2017 to January 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different treatment methods, the patients were divided into control group and observation group, with 51 cases in each group. The control group was treated by thrombolytic therapy with urokinase,while the observation group was treated by thrombolytic therapy with reteplase. The therapeutic effects of the two groups were compared. Results The total effective rate of treatment in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group, the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). After treatment, the levels of BNP, CRP, TNF-α and IL-1 in the two groups decreased, and those of the observation group were lower than the control group, the differences were statistically significant(P <0.05). After treatment, the LVDSD and LVEDD decreased and LVEF increased in both groups, and those of the observation group were better than the control group(P<0.05). The total incidence of complications in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group, the difference was statistically significant(P <0.05). Conclusion Reteplase is effective in thrombolytic therapy for patients with AMI. It can obviously promote thrombosis recanalization and has fewer complications, which is worthy of clinical promotion.
引文
[1]宋彩虹.不同时间瑞替普酶溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死效果的研究[J].中国现代药物应用,2016,10(3):158-160.
[2]吕永刚.瑞替普酶与尿激酶在急性心肌梗死溶栓再灌注治疗中疗效对比[J].中国实用医刊,2016,43(5):91-93.
[3]冯会福,马琪,刘正军.瑞替普酶静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死疗效及不良反应分析[J].中国实用医刊,2016,43(12):95-97.
[4]吕常智.急性心肌梗死3h内瑞替普酶溶栓与PCI治疗对左心功能影响的对比分析[J].中国动脉硬化杂志,2016,24(5):507-509.
[5]王玲.瑞替普酶与尿激酶在急性心肌梗死溶栓再灌注治疗中的疗效比较[J].中国实用医刊,2016,43(9):89-90.
[6]黎锦辉.瑞替普酶和尿激酶静脉溶栓对于急性心肌梗死患者并发症发生情况的影响[J].中国现代药物应用,2017,11(2):82-84.
[7]葛可法,潘宏仪,季菲菲,等.静脉注射不同浓度与速度的瑞替普酶对急性心肌梗死疗效影响[J].全科医学临床与教育,2017,15(2):187-189.
[8]莫丽.瑞替普酶静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死的疗效分析[J].中国医药指南,2017,15(18):58-59.
[9]赵鸿飞.瑞替普酶静脉溶栓治疗46例急性心肌梗死的临床疗效探讨[J].中国医药指南,2016,14(7):143.
[10]王磊.尿激酶与瑞替普酶溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死的安全性比较[J].中国继续医学教育,2017,9(11):183-184.
[11]梁文强,洪芳.急性心肌梗死溶栓治疗中瑞替普酶与尿激酶应用的对比分析[J].中国社区医师,2017,33(28):58,60.
[12]刘馨允,张优,张华,等.瑞替普酶与尿激酶对急性心肌梗死患者院内治疗有效性及安全性的多中心随机对照研究[J].中国动脉硬化杂志,2016,24(11):1138-1142.
[13]李云.常规剂量替罗非班联合半剂量瑞替普酶治疗ST段抬高性急性心肌梗死的疗效观察[J].实用临床医药杂志,2016,20(1):20-22.
[2]吕永刚.瑞替普酶与尿激酶在急性心肌梗死溶栓再灌注治疗中疗效对比[J].中国实用医刊,2016,43(5):91-93.
[3]冯会福,马琪,刘正军.瑞替普酶静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死疗效及不良反应分析[J].中国实用医刊,2016,43(12):95-97.
[4]吕常智.急性心肌梗死3h内瑞替普酶溶栓与PCI治疗对左心功能影响的对比分析[J].中国动脉硬化杂志,2016,24(5):507-509.
[5]王玲.瑞替普酶与尿激酶在急性心肌梗死溶栓再灌注治疗中的疗效比较[J].中国实用医刊,2016,43(9):89-90.
[6]黎锦辉.瑞替普酶和尿激酶静脉溶栓对于急性心肌梗死患者并发症发生情况的影响[J].中国现代药物应用,2017,11(2):82-84.
[7]葛可法,潘宏仪,季菲菲,等.静脉注射不同浓度与速度的瑞替普酶对急性心肌梗死疗效影响[J].全科医学临床与教育,2017,15(2):187-189.
[8]莫丽.瑞替普酶静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死的疗效分析[J].中国医药指南,2017,15(18):58-59.
[9]赵鸿飞.瑞替普酶静脉溶栓治疗46例急性心肌梗死的临床疗效探讨[J].中国医药指南,2016,14(7):143.
[10]王磊.尿激酶与瑞替普酶溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死的安全性比较[J].中国继续医学教育,2017,9(11):183-184.
[11]梁文强,洪芳.急性心肌梗死溶栓治疗中瑞替普酶与尿激酶应用的对比分析[J].中国社区医师,2017,33(28):58,60.
[12]刘馨允,张优,张华,等.瑞替普酶与尿激酶对急性心肌梗死患者院内治疗有效性及安全性的多中心随机对照研究[J].中国动脉硬化杂志,2016,24(11):1138-1142.
[13]李云.常规剂量替罗非班联合半剂量瑞替普酶治疗ST段抬高性急性心肌梗死的疗效观察[J].实用临床医药杂志,2016,20(1):20-22.