Objective To compare the clinical effect on lower extremity deep venous thrombosis(LEDVT)between catheter directed thrombolysis and systemic thrombolysis.Methods A total of 46 patients with LEDVT were selected in Shenzhou Hospital from August 2014 to January 2015,and they were divided into control group and test group according to therapeutic methods,each of 23 cases.Based on anticoagulant therapy,patients of control group received systemic thrombolysis,while patients of test group received catheter directed thrombolysis.Clinical effect,clinical symptoms score,hospital stays,treatment time,hospital fees,dosage of urokinase,venous patency degree score and bilateral lower limbs cross-section diameter difference(including bilateral thigh cross-section diameter difference and bilateral crus cross-section diameter)before treatment and after 30 days of treatment were compared between the two groups,and incidence of complications was observed during the treatment.Results Clinical effect of test group was statistically significantly better than that of control group(P<0.05).Clinical symptoms score of test group was statistically significantly lower than that of control group(P<0.05).Hospital stays of test group was statistically significantly longer than that of control group,treatment time of observation group was statistically significantly shorter than that of control group,hospital fees of observation group was statistically significantly more than that of control group,while dosage of urokinase of observation group was statistically significantly less than that of control group(P<0.05).No statistically significant differences of venous patency degree score,bilateral thigh cross-section diameter difference or bilateral crus cross-section diameter difference was found between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05);after 30 days of treatment,venous patency degree score of test group was statistically significantly lower than that of control group,meanwhile bilateral thigh cross-section diameter difference and bilateral crus cross-section diameter of test group were statistically significantly smaller than those of control group(P<0.05).No one of the two groups occurred any serious complications during the treatment.Conclusion Catheter directed thrombolysis has better clinical effect than systemic thrombolysis in treating LEDVT,can more effectively relive the clinical symptoms,promote the venous recanalization,with relatively high safety;but it will extend the length of stay and increase the cost of hospitalization.%目的 比较导管接触性溶栓与系统性溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成(LEDVT)的临床效果.方法 选取2014年8月-2015年1月深州市医院收治的LEDVT患者46例,根据治疗方法分为对照组和试验组,每组23例.在抗凝治疗基础上,对照组患者予以系统性溶栓治疗,试验组患者予以导管接触性溶栓治疗.比较两组患者临床效果、临床症状评分、住院时间、治疗时间、住院费用、尿激酶用量,治疗前及治疗后30 d静脉通畅度评分、双下肢周径差(包括双侧大腿周径差和双侧小腿周径差),并观察两组患者治疗期间并发症发生情况.结果 试验组患者临床效果优于对照组(P<0.05).试验组患者临床症状评分低于对照组(P<0.05).试验组患者住院时间长于对照组,治疗时间短于对照组,住院费用多于对照组,尿激酶用量少于对照组(P<0.05).治疗前两组患者静脉通畅度评分、双侧大腿周径差和双侧小腿周径差比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后30 d试验组患者静脉通畅度评分低于对照组,双侧大腿周径差和双侧小腿周径差小于对照组(P<0.05).两组患者治疗期间均未发生严重并发症.结论 导管接触性溶栓治疗LEDVT的临床效果优于系统性溶栓治疗,可更有效地改善患者临床症状、促进静脉再通,且安全性较高;但其会延长患者住院时间、增加住院费用.
展开▼
