摘要
目的:探讨瑞替普酶对ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死(STEAMI)治疗的临床疗效与安全性。方法:124例符合溶栓治疗的STEAMI患者,其中62例给予瑞替普酶10mu静注,30分钟后重复上述剂量1次;62例给予尿激酶150万U溶栓,30分钟内静滴完成。对比观察两组的临床再通率、血管再通率、急性期并发症等。结果:瑞替普酶组与尿激酶组相比,临床再通率(83.9%VS61.3%),血管再通率(72.6%VS54.8%),差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。瑞替普酶组出血发生率低于尿激酶组(4.8%VS9.7%),但无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组的死亡率、心源性休克及严重心律失常发生率间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:应用瑞替普酶对ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死进行溶栓临床疗效及安全性优于尿激酶。
Objective：To investigate reteplase comparison between clinical effects and safety of domestic reteplase and urokinase used in treating ST segment elevation acute myocardial infarction （ STEAMI ）. Method： 124 STEAMI patients in line with thrombolytic therapy were divided into 2 Groups （ each 62 cases） ： Reteplase Group and Uro- kinase Group. Reteplase Group was intravenously injected with 10 mu reteplase and repeated 30 min. later; Urokinase Group was intravenously injected with 1,500,000 U urokinase within 30 min. Clinical recanalization rate, reperfusion rate, acute stage com- plications, etc. of both groups were compared for observation accordingly. Result： Reteplase Group and Urokinase Group were dif- ferent in clinical recanalization rate （ 83.9% VS 61.3%） , reperfusion rate （72. 6% vssg. 8% ）, acute stage complications, etc. indicating statistical significance （ P 〈 0. 05 ）. The former had lower morbility of hemorrhage than the latter （4.8% VS9. 7% ）, but indicating no statistical sig- nificance （ P 〉 0. 05 ） ; mortality and morbility of cardiac shock and severe arrhythmia indicated no statistical significance （P 〉 0. 05）. Conclusion： Application of reteplase in treating STEAMI by thrombolytic therapy is more curative and safer than urokinase. It shall be corrected as： Reteplase is indeed a good thrombolytic drug superior to urokinase.
关键词
瑞替普酶
尿激酶
心肌梗死
Reteplase Urokinase Myocardial Infarction
