|
|
|
| Clinical Effects Comparison of Catheter Directed Thrombolysis and Peripheral Venous Thrombolysis in Patients with Acute Lower Deep Vein Thrombosis |
| CAI Nuo-ya, JIN Qiu-lu, CHEN Bo-hua |
| School of Clinical Medicine, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong 266071 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract 【Objective】To compare the clinical efficacy of catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) and peripheral venous thrombolysis (AVT) in the treatment of acute lower deep vein thrombosis (LDVT).【Methods】A total of 70 cases of patients with acute LDVT in Shuyang People's Hospital were collected for the study and divided into the CDT group (n=36, treated with inferior vena cava filter and CDT) and the AVT group (n=34, treated with AVT). The clinical efficacy, venous angiography, coagulation and fibrillation indexes and complications were compared between the two groups.【Results】The significant curative effects were shown in the two groups after operation. The circumference difference of legs and uninjured limb after thrombolysis was significantly smaller than that before thrombolysis (P<0.05), and the decrease rate and swelling rate of the CDT group were better than those of the AVT group (P<0.05). and the concentrations of D-dimer and FDP at 24h of thrombolysis were significantly higher than those before operation (P<0.05), and the concentrations at the end of thrombolysis were significantly lower than those at 24h of thrombolysis or those before thrombolysis (P<0.05). And the PIB level at 24h of thrombolysis was significantly lower than that before operation (P<0.05) and significantly higher than that at the end of thrombolysis (P<0.05), and the changes degrees of the above indexes in the CDT group were significantly greater than those in the AVT group. The total incidence rate of postoperative complications was 30.55% (11/36)in the CDT group and 20.58% (7/34)in the AVT group, therefore there was no significant difference in the postoperative complications between the two groups (χ2=0.91, P>0.05).【Conclusion】CDT and AVT both have good effects in the treatment of acute LDVT. There are no significant differences in the incidence rate of complications in the use of CDT and AVT, but the swelling rate and thrombolysis rate of CDT are better than those of AVT, therefore CDT is more suitable for LDVT treatment.
|
|
Received: 21 September 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 王绍娟,王利伟,顾建平,等.双源CT双向法静脉造影在下肢深静脉血栓中的初步应用[J].中国CT和MRI杂志,2015,13(5):32-34.
[2] 王可,汪洋.中西医结合治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成74例[J].四川中医,2015,33(2):130-132.
[3] 郭洪启.导管溶栓与经足背静脉溶栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓疗效比较[J].蚌埠医学院学报,2016,41(9):1221-1223.[4] 张利,李想,吴华平.不同容量导管溶栓对急性期下肢深静脉血栓形成效果[J].齐鲁医学杂志,2017,32(1):66-68.
[5] 李炳华,李洪福,侯召银,等.综合介入治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成的临床研究[J].中国基层医药,2013,20(17):2599-2601.
[6] 金良凤,陈敏.周围静脉与深静脉置管两种溶栓方法用于急性下肢深静脉血栓的疗效比较[J].武汉大学学报(医学版),2017,38(2):334-336.
[7] 刘凯,倪才方,段鹏飞.经大隐静脉入路行导管溶栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓的可行性[J].中国介入影像与治疗学,2015,12(5):275-279.
[8] 马东明,郝清智.经导管溶栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓形成[J].中国中西医结合外科杂志,2015,12(6):563-566.
[9] 杨丹丹,周夏伶,滕云.IPC在妇科盆腔术后预防下肢深静脉血栓的应用效果观察[J].湖南师范大学学报(医学版),2016,13(3):127-129.
[10] 黄肖华.下肢深静脉血栓形成的研究进展[J].中国民族民间医药,2015,24(1):45-47.
[11] 张群.利伐沙班与低分子肝素对下肢骨折后深静脉血栓的预防效果比较[J].药物评价研究,2016,39(4):627-630.
[12] 杜卫华,刘凤军,赵敏.尿激酶导管溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓1例[J].中国现代普通外科进展,2015,18(11):911.
[13] 张学民,张韬,张小明,等.下肢深静脉血栓形成导管接触溶栓与外周静脉系统溶栓早期疗效的对比研究[J].中国微创外科杂志,2016,16(3):228-232.
[14] 冯宗莲,秦志强,许承琼,等.肺栓塞患者治疗后凝血纤溶系统指标变化与血栓近期溶解的关系[J].中国中西医结合急救杂志,2017,24(1):49-53.
[15] 刘坤,王小凯,陈军,等.导管溶栓与系统溶栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓形成的疗效对比观察[J].中国普外基础与临床杂志,2017,24(3):307-311.
[16] 董嘉尧,朱桥华,罗美华,等.急性下肢深静脉血栓经导管溶栓过程中凝血纤溶指标的临床意义[J].南方医科大学学报,2016,36(4):588-591. |
| [1] |
. [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL RESEARCH, 2018, 35(4): 742-744. |
|
|
|
|
2018, Vol. 35 
