The value evaluation of clinical and coronary angiography recanalization after thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction
急性心肌梗死溶栓后临床与冠脉造影血管再通的价值评价

摘要

目的 分析临床评价与冠状造影评价对急性心肌梗死溶栓治疗后血管再通情况的评价效果。方法 选取2023年6月至2024年6月我院收治的50例急性梗死患者为研究对象，所有患者均在发病3h内接受溶栓治疗。对比临床与冠脉造影评价两种方法下的血管再通率，并以冠脉造影作为金标准，观察临床评价方法下的灵敏度及特异度。结果 临床评价方法与冠脉造影在评估血管再通率方面无显著差异（P＞0.05）；以冠脉造影评价结果作为金标准，临床评价方法下的灵敏度为92.86%，特异度为87.50%。结论 急性心肌梗死溶栓治疗后，临床评价方法与冠脉造影在评估血管再通率方面结果基本一致，两种方法均适用于临床。

Abstract

Objective To analyze the evaluation effect of clinical evaluation and coronary angiography evaluation on vascular recanalization after thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction.
Methods Fifty patients with acute infarction admitted to our hospital from June 2023 to June 2024 were selected as the study subjects. All patients received thrombolytic therapy within 3 hours of onset. Compare the vascular recanalization rate between clinical and coronary angiography evaluation methods, and use coronary angiography as the gold standard to observe the sensitivity and specificity of clinical evaluation methods.
Results There was no significant difference (P>0.05) between clinical evaluation methods and coronary angiography in assessing vascular recanalization rate; Using coronary angiography evaluation results as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of the clinical evaluation method were 92.86% and 87.50%, respectively.
Conclusion   After thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction, the clinical evaluation method and coronary angiography have similar results in evaluating vascular recanalization rate, and both methods are applicable to clinical practice.