直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗和单纯静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死的对比研究

目的分析直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与单纯静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死的疗效并进行比较。方法对我院2006年7月～2008年12月间收治的132例急性心肌梗死患者，进行非随机分组，介入治疗组75例，静脉溶栓组57例，比较分析两组患者再通率、死亡率、卧床时间和住院时间等情况。结果单纯静脉溶栓组再灌注率为59．6％，直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗组为96％．介入治疗组住院时间为（15.93±1．87）d；静脉溶栓组住院时间为（21．05±1．91）d。结论急性心肌梗死患者采取经皮冠状动脉介入治疗，能及时有效地开通梗死相关血管，挽救濒临死亡的心肌，改善心功能，降低死亡率，明显缩短卧床时间和住院时间，优于静脉溶栓治疗。

Comparison of Pci and Venous Thrombolysis for Paients with Acute Myocardial Infarction

Objective To compare the clinical effects between the PCI（percutaneous coronary intervention） and thromlytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Methods One hundred and thirty-two patients with AMI were not randomly divided into 2 groups：PCI group （ 75 cases ） and thromlytic therapy group （ 57 cases ） ; The mortality, rate of reperfusion, bed time and length of stay in hospital were compared. Results Compared with thromlysis therapy, PCI decreased length of stay in hospital, and improved rate of reperfusion. Conclusion PCI may effectively open infracted vessel, rescue myocardium on verge of dead, improve ventricular function, decrease mortality, bed time and length of stay in hospital, so PCI should be the first choice for patients with acute myocardial infarction.