摘要
验证急性心肌梗死 (AMI) 12 0 -CCU模式院前溶栓治疗能缩短发病—溶栓时间 ,提高溶栓治疗的疗效。方法 前瞻性对比 1999年 1～ 6月期间 12 0 -CCU模式院前溶栓治疗组 (A组 )、急诊室 -CCU模式院内溶栓治疗组 (B组 )发病—溶栓时间延迟及临床疗效。结果 A组 2 1例 ,B组 2 3例。两组患者发病—就诊时间相似 (2 5± 1 9hvs 3 0± 2 7h ,P >0 0 5 ) ,但A组就诊—溶栓时间缩短 1 3h(0 8± 0 5hvs 2 1± 1 5h ,P <0 0 5 ) ,发病—溶栓时间缩短 1 9h(3 2± 1 9hvs 5 1±2 6h ,P <0 0 5 )。虽然A组心梗史 ,发病时出现严重血流动力学障碍的比例高于B组 ,但两组死亡率相似 (4 8%vs 4 3% ,P>0 0 5 )。结论 AMI 12 0
Objective To determine the time saving and improved outcome of prehospital vs inhospital thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction(AMI) Methods The interval from symtom onset to thrombolysis and clinical oucomes of patients with AMI who presented to 120 unit and treated by emergency medical personnel (group A)were perspectively collected and compared to those of patients who presented to emergency department and treated by cardiologists (group B)during January to June,1999 Results There were 21 and 23 patients in group A and B,respectively Although the interval from symptom onset to presentation was similar in group A and B (2 5±1 9 h vs 3 0±2 7 h, P >0 05),the interval from presentation to thrombolysis in group A was 1 3 h shorter than in group B (0 8±0 5 h vs 2 1±1 5 h, P <0 01),and the interval from symptom onset to thrombolysis in group A was 1 9 h shorter than in group B (3 2±1 9 h vs 5 1±2 6 h, P <0 01) There were more patients with old MI and severe hemodynamic unstability on presentation in group A than in group B,but the inhospital mortality rate was similar in the two groups(4 8% vs 4 3%, P =NS) Conclusion Compared to inhospital thrombolysis,prehospital thrombolysis shortened the interval from symptom onset to thrombolysis,and probably improved thrombolytic efficacy in patients with AMI [
出处
《中国急救医学》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2000年第5期269-270,共2页
Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine
