导管接触性溶栓与系统性溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成的效果对比
|
摘要
目的探讨下肢深静脉血栓形成患者应用导管接触性溶栓以及系统性溶栓治疗的效果。方法抽取82例2016年1月—2017年12月该院收治的下肢深静脉血栓形成患者,所选抽取对象依照其治疗方式的差异分为对比组(n=39)和探讨组(n=43),给予所有患者抗凝治疗,对比组患者在常规基础上应用系统性溶栓治疗,探讨组患者联合应用导管接触性溶栓治疗。结果经过治疗后2组患者病情均有好转,探讨组患者病情痊愈率为55.81%,对比组为38.46%,2组差异有统计学意义(χ~2=14.296 0,P=0.028 4)。治疗后探讨组患者双侧小腿周径差为(1.0±0.4)cm,对比组患者为(2.1±0.5)cm,探讨组患者双侧大腿周径差为(1.1±0.3)cm,对比组患者为(2.3±0.4)cm,治疗后探讨组患者双侧小腿周径差小于对比组患者,2组差异有统计学意义(t=15.920 5,P=0.028 1),双侧大腿周径差小于对比组患者,2组差异有统计学意义(t=23.295 0,P=0.042 4)。结论下肢深静脉血栓形成患者应用导管接触性溶栓治疗效果更加理想,有助于显著改善患者临床症状,加快静脉再通速度。
Objective To study the effect of catheter contact thrombolysis and systematic thrombolytic therapy of deep venous thrombosis. Methods 82 cases of patients with deep venous thrombosis admitted and treated in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2017 were selected and divided into two groups, including the comparison group with 39 cases and study group with 43 cases, and all patients were for anticoagulant therapy, and the comparison group applied the systematic thrombolytic therapy on the basis of the routine therapy, while the study group applied the catheter contact thrombolysis. Results Both groups were improved after treatment, the cure rate in the study group and in the comparison group was respectively 55.81% and 38.46%, and the difference was statistically significant(χ~2=14.296 0,P =0.028 4), after treatment, the circumference difference of bilateral calf in the study group and in the comparison group after treatment were respectively(1.0±0.4) cm and(2.1±0.5) cm, and the bilateral thigh circumference difference in the study group and in the comparison group were respectively(1.1±0.3) cm and(2.3±0.4) cm, after treatment, the circumference difference of bilateral calf in the study group was lower than that in the comparison group, and the difference between groups was statistically significant(t=15.920 5, P=0.028 1), and the bilateral thigh circumference difference was smaller than that in the comparison group, and the difference was statistically significant(t=23.295 0, P=0.042 4). Conclusion The application effect of catheter contact thrombolysis therapy of deep venous thrombosis is ideal, which contributes to obviously improving the clinical symptoms, and accelerating the vein recanalization rate.
Objective To study the effect of catheter contact thrombolysis and systematic thrombolytic therapy of deep venous thrombosis. Methods 82 cases of patients with deep venous thrombosis admitted and treated in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2017 were selected and divided into two groups, including the comparison group with 39 cases and study group with 43 cases, and all patients were for anticoagulant therapy, and the comparison group applied the systematic thrombolytic therapy on the basis of the routine therapy, while the study group applied the catheter contact thrombolysis. Results Both groups were improved after treatment, the cure rate in the study group and in the comparison group was respectively 55.81% and 38.46%, and the difference was statistically significant(χ~2=14.296 0,P =0.028 4), after treatment, the circumference difference of bilateral calf in the study group and in the comparison group after treatment were respectively(1.0±0.4) cm and(2.1±0.5) cm, and the bilateral thigh circumference difference in the study group and in the comparison group were respectively(1.1±0.3) cm and(2.3±0.4) cm, after treatment, the circumference difference of bilateral calf in the study group was lower than that in the comparison group, and the difference between groups was statistically significant(t=15.920 5, P=0.028 1), and the bilateral thigh circumference difference was smaller than that in the comparison group, and the difference was statistically significant(t=23.295 0, P=0.042 4). Conclusion The application effect of catheter contact thrombolysis therapy of deep venous thrombosis is ideal, which contributes to obviously improving the clinical symptoms, and accelerating the vein recanalization rate.
引文
[1]宋富波,张居文,杨牟,等.经腘静脉入路导管接触性溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓临床观察[J].中国医刊,2016,51(11):88-90.
[2]刘三豹,甄红云,高淑敏,等.导管接触性溶栓与系统性溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成的临床效果比较[J].实用心脑肺血管病杂志,2017,25(4):94-98.
[3]王茂生,何飞,孙德云,等.导管接触溶栓和外周静脉系统溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成的疗效观察[J].血管与腔内血管外科杂志,2017,3(1):575-578.
[4]许冉,孟鑫.导管接触性溶栓治疗急性期下肢深静脉血栓的应用[J].中国现代药物应用,2014(14):124-125.
[5]杨继武,王辉,廖向群.急性下肢深静脉血栓导管溶栓后髂静脉狭窄的支架治疗[J].中华普通外科杂志,2016,31(1):62-63.
[6]许学明,李慧娟,米占广.下肢深静脉血栓导管溶栓与系统性溶栓的比较[J].宁夏医学杂志,2015,37(12):1170-1172.
[7]王海涛,于志海,涂灿,等.下肢深静脉血栓介入性溶栓治疗疗效分析[J].中国现代医生,2017,55(31):25-28,34.
[8]胡潍青,孙波,裴长安,等.超声引导下经腘静脉置管溶栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓形成[J].中华普通外科杂志,2015,30(4):260-263.
[9]彭江涛,徐崇松,杨涛.62例急性下肢深静脉血栓形成导管介入性溶栓的临床治疗分析[J].中国伤残医学,2014,(8):18-19.
[10]张建伟,何锋.经导管接触溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓患者的临床效果观察[J].中国临床新医学,2017,10(7):646-648.
[2]刘三豹,甄红云,高淑敏,等.导管接触性溶栓与系统性溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成的临床效果比较[J].实用心脑肺血管病杂志,2017,25(4):94-98.
[3]王茂生,何飞,孙德云,等.导管接触溶栓和外周静脉系统溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成的疗效观察[J].血管与腔内血管外科杂志,2017,3(1):575-578.
[4]许冉,孟鑫.导管接触性溶栓治疗急性期下肢深静脉血栓的应用[J].中国现代药物应用,2014(14):124-125.
[5]杨继武,王辉,廖向群.急性下肢深静脉血栓导管溶栓后髂静脉狭窄的支架治疗[J].中华普通外科杂志,2016,31(1):62-63.
[6]许学明,李慧娟,米占广.下肢深静脉血栓导管溶栓与系统性溶栓的比较[J].宁夏医学杂志,2015,37(12):1170-1172.
[7]王海涛,于志海,涂灿,等.下肢深静脉血栓介入性溶栓治疗疗效分析[J].中国现代医生,2017,55(31):25-28,34.
[8]胡潍青,孙波,裴长安,等.超声引导下经腘静脉置管溶栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓形成[J].中华普通外科杂志,2015,30(4):260-263.
[9]彭江涛,徐崇松,杨涛.62例急性下肢深静脉血栓形成导管介入性溶栓的临床治疗分析[J].中国伤残医学,2014,(8):18-19.
[10]张建伟,何锋.经导管接触溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓患者的临床效果观察[J].中国临床新医学,2017,10(7):646-648.