奥扎格雷与脑得生序贯治疗急性脑梗死的临床观察

目的:观察奥扎格雷与脑得生序贯治疗急性脑梗死的疗效与安全性。方法:采用前瞻性的随机对照试验设计方法,共入选278例急性脑梗死患者,将符合方案分析集的264例患者随机均分为A、B组。两组患者均给予相同的基础治疗。A组患者采用奥扎格雷80 mg静脉滴注,bid,7 d后改用口服脑得生,每次6粒,tid,至第14天;B组患者采用奥扎格雷80 mg静脉滴注,bid,连用14 d。根据患者的神经功能缺损评分和日常生活能力评分进行临床疗效评价,并比较两组患者的不良反应发生情况。结果:A组患者的基本治愈率为31.8%,总有效率为96.2%,不良反应发生率为5.8%;B组患者的基本治愈率为31.1%,总有效率为96.9%,不良反应发生率为7.1%。两组患者在疗效及不良反应发生率等方面比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:对于急性脑梗死的患者,采用奥扎格雷与脑得生序贯治疗同连续静脉滴注奥扎格雷治疗效果近似,安全性均良好。

Clinical Observation of Sequential Therapy of Ozagrel and Naodesheng in the Treatment of Acute Cerebral Infarction

OBJECTIVE： To observe the safety and clinical efficacy of sequential therapy of ozagrel and naodesheng in the treatment of acute cerebral infarction. METHODS： By prospective randomized controlled design, 278 patients with acute cerebral infarction were selected. 264 patients were fitted for program, which was randomly divided into 2 groups A and group B. Both groups received same routine treatment. Group A was given ozagrel 80 mg, ivgtt, bid; 7 days later, naodesheng was taken orally instead, 6 pills each time, tid for 7 days. Group B was given ozagrel 80 mg, ivgtt, bid, for 14 days. The neurologic impairment score and activity of daily living were compared after therapy to evaluate the clinical efficacy, and the safety of them were also compared between 2 groups. RESULTS： The basic cure rate of group A was 31.8%, and total effective rate was 96.2%. The incidence of adverse drug reaction was 5.8%. The basic cure rate of group B was 31.1%, and total effective rate was 96.9%. The incidence of adverse drug reaction was 7.1%. There was no statistical significance in clinic efficacy and the incidence of adverse drug reaction （P〉0.05）. CONCLUSIONS： The clinical efficacy of sequential therapy of ozagrel and naodesheng is similar to that of continuous intervenous drop of ozagrel in the treatment of acute cerebral infarction. Both show good safety.