天津医药 ›› 2023, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (10): 1141-1145.doi: 10.11958/20230414
周曾(), 凤兆海, 徐竞, 郑颖炜, 丁函, 李美英△(
)
收稿日期:
2023-03-24
修回日期:
2023-05-08
出版日期:
2023-10-15
发布日期:
2023-10-18
通讯作者:
∆E-mail:limeiying2010@yeah.net
作者简介:
周曾(1979),男,副主任医师,主要从事脑血管病方面研究。E-mail:
ZHOU Zeng(), FENG Zhaohai, XU Jing, ZHENG Yingwei, DING Han, LI Meiying△(
)
Received:
2023-03-24
Revised:
2023-05-08
Published:
2023-10-15
Online:
2023-10-18
Contact:
∆E-mail:limeiying2010@yeah.net
周曾, 凤兆海, 徐竞, 郑颖炜, 丁函, 李美英. 丁苯酞联合低剂量重组组织型纤溶酶原激活物静脉溶栓治疗超早期脑梗死老年患者的疗效观察[J]. 天津医药, 2023, 51(10): 1141-1145.
ZHOU Zeng, FENG Zhaohai, XU Jing, ZHENG Yingwei, DING Han, LI Meiying. Curative effect of butylphthalide combined with low-dose recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator for intravenous thrombolytic therapy in elderly patients with ultra-early cerebral infarction[J]. Tianjin Medical Journal, 2023, 51(10): 1141-1145.
摘要:
目的 探讨丁苯酞联合低剂量重组组织型纤溶酶原激活物(rt-PA)静脉溶栓治疗超早期脑梗死老年患者的疗效。方法 156例超早期脑梗死老年患者根据不同治疗方法分为丁+低rt-PA组[30例,丁苯酞联合低剂量(0.6 mg/kg)rt-PA],丁+标rt-PA组[62例,丁苯酞联合标准剂量(0.9 mg/kg)rt-PA],低rt-PA组[30例,低剂量(0.6 mg/kg)rt-PA],标rt-PA组[34例,标准剂量(0.9 mg/kg)rt-PA]。溶栓后,观察比较4组患者的美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分(NHISS)、改良Rankin量表评分(mRS)、日常生活活动能力(ADL)评分、中性粒细胞计数(NET)、淋巴细胞计数(LYT)、血小板计数(PLT)、中性粒细胞绝对值/淋巴细胞绝对值(NLR)、血小板绝对值/中性粒细胞绝对值(PNR),并统计分析不良预后。结果 溶栓后7 d,加用丁苯酞可降低NHISS和mRS及NET、PLT、NLR水平,增加ADL评分和LYT水平(P<0.05);不同剂量rt-PA对NHISS、mRS、ADL评分、NET、LYT、PLT、NLR、PNR水平无影响(P>0.05);4组总不良预后率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 丁苯酞联合低剂量及标准剂量rt-PA治疗超早期脑梗死老年患者安全有效。
中图分类号:
组别 | n | 年龄/岁 | 性别(男/女) | 发病时间/h | 合并症 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
高血压 | 糖尿病 | 房颤 | |||||
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 84.17±4.24 | 9/21 | 2.92±0.92 | 15 | 9 | 5 |
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 76.12±4.24a | 16/18 | 2.87±1.04 | 23 | 8 | 9 |
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 82.47±5.20 | 15/15 | 2.90±0.99 | 24 | 9 | 4 |
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 75.53±4.29ac | 33/29 | 2.86±0.85 | 40 | 17 | 9 |
F或χ2 | 36.387** | 4.553 | 0.029 | 6.066 | 0.456 | 2.672 |
表1 4组一般资料比较 ($\bar{x}±s$)
Tab.1 Comparison of general information between the four groups
组别 | n | 年龄/岁 | 性别(男/女) | 发病时间/h | 合并症 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
高血压 | 糖尿病 | 房颤 | |||||
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 84.17±4.24 | 9/21 | 2.92±0.92 | 15 | 9 | 5 |
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 76.12±4.24a | 16/18 | 2.87±1.04 | 23 | 8 | 9 |
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 82.47±5.20 | 15/15 | 2.90±0.99 | 24 | 9 | 4 |
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 75.53±4.29ac | 33/29 | 2.86±0.85 | 40 | 17 | 9 |
F或χ2 | 36.387** | 4.553 | 0.029 | 6.066 | 0.456 | 2.672 |
组别 | n | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后1 h | 溶栓后1 d | 溶栓后7 d |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 11.50(5.75,15.00) | 10.50(4.75,15.00) | 10.00(5.00,14.25) | 8.50(2.75,13.25) |
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 9.50(5.75,16.00) | 9.50(3.00,16.25) | 9.00(3.00,16.25) | 7.00(2.00,13.25) |
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 12.50(6.00,19.25) | 7.00(3.00,11.00) | 7.00(2.00,10.00) | 5.00(2.00,8.00) |
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 11.00(7.00,16.00) | 8.00(4.00,12.25) | 8.00(4.00,11.25) | 5.00(3.00,7.25) |
HA | 0.504 | 1.522 | 2.193 | 5.112* | |
HB | 0.376 | 0.026 | 0.236 | 0.175 | |
HA×B | 0.030 | 0.187 | 1.081 | 0.492 |
表2 4组溶栓前后NHISS比较 [分,M(P25,P75)]
Tab.2 Comparison of NHISS scores before and after thrombolysis between the four groups
组别 | n | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后1 h | 溶栓后1 d | 溶栓后7 d |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 11.50(5.75,15.00) | 10.50(4.75,15.00) | 10.00(5.00,14.25) | 8.50(2.75,13.25) |
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 9.50(5.75,16.00) | 9.50(3.00,16.25) | 9.00(3.00,16.25) | 7.00(2.00,13.25) |
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 12.50(6.00,19.25) | 7.00(3.00,11.00) | 7.00(2.00,10.00) | 5.00(2.00,8.00) |
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 11.00(7.00,16.00) | 8.00(4.00,12.25) | 8.00(4.00,11.25) | 5.00(3.00,7.25) |
HA | 0.504 | 1.522 | 2.193 | 5.112* | |
HB | 0.376 | 0.026 | 0.236 | 0.175 | |
HA×B | 0.030 | 0.187 | 1.081 | 0.492 |
组别 | n | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后1 d | 溶栓后7 d |
---|---|---|---|---|
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 20.00(10.00,40.00) | 30.00(15.00,45.00) | 40.00(20.00,51.25) |
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 20.00(10.00,36.25) | 30.00(10.00,47.50) | 47.50(10.00,65.00) |
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 25.00(10.00,37.50) | 42.50(20.00,55.00) | 50.00(33.75,70.00) |
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 25.00(20.00,35.00) | 40.00(25.00,60.00) | 50.00(35.00,76.25) |
HA | 1.390 | 8.598** | 4.889* | |
HB | 0.358 | 0.017 | 0.644 | |
HA×B | 0.290 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
表3 4组溶栓前后ADL评分比较 [分,M(P25,P75)]
Tab.3 Comparison of ADL scores before and after thrombolysis between the four groups
组别 | n | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后1 d | 溶栓后7 d |
---|---|---|---|---|
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 20.00(10.00,40.00) | 30.00(15.00,45.00) | 40.00(20.00,51.25) |
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 20.00(10.00,36.25) | 30.00(10.00,47.50) | 47.50(10.00,65.00) |
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 25.00(10.00,37.50) | 42.50(20.00,55.00) | 50.00(33.75,70.00) |
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 25.00(20.00,35.00) | 40.00(25.00,60.00) | 50.00(35.00,76.25) |
HA | 1.390 | 8.598** | 4.889* | |
HB | 0.358 | 0.017 | 0.644 | |
HA×B | 0.290 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
组别 | n | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d |
---|---|---|---|
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 4.00(3.75,5.00) | 4.00(2.00,4.00) |
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 4.00(2.75,5.00) | 3.00(1.00,5.00) |
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 4.00(3.00,5.00) | 2.00(1.75,4.00) |
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 4.00(3.00,5.00) | 3.00(2.00,3.00) |
HA | 0.168 | 4.105* | |
HB | 0.775 | 0.439 | |
HA×B | 0.218 | 1.376 |
表4 4组溶栓前后mRS评分比较 [分,M(P25,P75)]
Tab.4 Comparison of mRS scores before and after thrombolysis between the four groups
组别 | n | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d |
---|---|---|---|
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 4.00(3.75,5.00) | 4.00(2.00,4.00) |
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 4.00(2.75,5.00) | 3.00(1.00,5.00) |
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 4.00(3.00,5.00) | 2.00(1.75,4.00) |
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 4.00(3.00,5.00) | 3.00(2.00,3.00) |
HA | 0.168 | 4.105* | |
HB | 0.775 | 0.439 | |
HA×B | 0.218 | 1.376 |
组别 | n | NET/(×109/L) | PLT/(×109/L) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d | ||||||||
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 4.89(3.32,6.68) | 6.77(3.99,8.17) | 161.00(110.75,198.50) | 237.00(150.75,271.50) | ||||||
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 4.77(3.53,6.25) | 6.26(4.53,7.47) | 160.50(137.00,203.00) | 225.00(171.25,278.75) | ||||||
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 4.25(3.35,6.17) | 4.66(3.45,6.19) | 166.00(129.50,198.75) | 186.50(139.50,242.75) | ||||||
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 5.08(3.86,6.33) | 5.37(4.40,6.78) | 170.50(135.75,204.50) | 191.50(165.50,238.25) | ||||||
HA | 0.232 | 7.554** | 0.432 | 6.857** | |||||||
HB | 0.475 | 0.509 | 0.555 | 0.219 | |||||||
HA×B | 0.893 | 0.209 | 0.080 | 0.039 | |||||||
组别 | LYT/(×109/L) | NLR | PNR | ||||||||
溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d | ||||||
低rt-PA组 | 1.50(0.95,1.98) | 1.01(0.81,1.29) | 3.07(1.91,6.20) | 5.20(3.92,8.61) | 37.08(22.95,49.43) | 35.77(26.51,57.03) | |||||
标rt-PA组 | 1.49(1.03,2.18) | 1.23(1.00,1.62) | 2.89(1.98,5.05) | 4.69(3.06,7.03) | 35.57(28.14,44.37) | 36.36(25.11,50.01) | |||||
丁+低rt-PA组 | 1.58(1.06,2.10) | 1.35(0.99,1.93) | 3.21(2.11,4.52) | 4.00(2.50,5.45) | 38.85(28.77,48.42) | 42.26(28.52,50.73) | |||||
丁+标rt-PA组 | 1.69(1.23,2.01) | 1.46(1.13,1.77) | 3.37(2.26,4.15) | 3.95(3.00,5.10) | 34.26(27.10,41.79) | 36.95(28.14,48.81) | |||||
HA | 0.483 | 10.759** | 0.002 | 10.845** | 0.003 | 0.426 | |||||
HB | 1.191 | 3.085 | 0.127 | 0.456 | 0.425 | 0.210 | |||||
HA×B | 0.150 | 1.473 | 0.217 | 0.401 | 1.242 | 0.171 |
表5 4组溶栓前后炎症指标比较 [M(P25,P75)]
Tab.5 Comparison of inflammatory indexes before and after thrombolysis between the four groups
组别 | n | NET/(×109/L) | PLT/(×109/L) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d | ||||||||
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 4.89(3.32,6.68) | 6.77(3.99,8.17) | 161.00(110.75,198.50) | 237.00(150.75,271.50) | ||||||
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 4.77(3.53,6.25) | 6.26(4.53,7.47) | 160.50(137.00,203.00) | 225.00(171.25,278.75) | ||||||
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 4.25(3.35,6.17) | 4.66(3.45,6.19) | 166.00(129.50,198.75) | 186.50(139.50,242.75) | ||||||
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 5.08(3.86,6.33) | 5.37(4.40,6.78) | 170.50(135.75,204.50) | 191.50(165.50,238.25) | ||||||
HA | 0.232 | 7.554** | 0.432 | 6.857** | |||||||
HB | 0.475 | 0.509 | 0.555 | 0.219 | |||||||
HA×B | 0.893 | 0.209 | 0.080 | 0.039 | |||||||
组别 | LYT/(×109/L) | NLR | PNR | ||||||||
溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d | 溶栓前 | 溶栓后7 d | ||||||
低rt-PA组 | 1.50(0.95,1.98) | 1.01(0.81,1.29) | 3.07(1.91,6.20) | 5.20(3.92,8.61) | 37.08(22.95,49.43) | 35.77(26.51,57.03) | |||||
标rt-PA组 | 1.49(1.03,2.18) | 1.23(1.00,1.62) | 2.89(1.98,5.05) | 4.69(3.06,7.03) | 35.57(28.14,44.37) | 36.36(25.11,50.01) | |||||
丁+低rt-PA组 | 1.58(1.06,2.10) | 1.35(0.99,1.93) | 3.21(2.11,4.52) | 4.00(2.50,5.45) | 38.85(28.77,48.42) | 42.26(28.52,50.73) | |||||
丁+标rt-PA组 | 1.69(1.23,2.01) | 1.46(1.13,1.77) | 3.37(2.26,4.15) | 3.95(3.00,5.10) | 34.26(27.10,41.79) | 36.95(28.14,48.81) | |||||
HA | 0.483 | 10.759** | 0.002 | 10.845** | 0.003 | 0.426 | |||||
HB | 1.191 | 3.085 | 0.127 | 0.456 | 0.425 | 0.210 | |||||
HA×B | 0.150 | 1.473 | 0.217 | 0.401 | 1.242 | 0.171 |
组别 | n | 出血转化 | 心血管事件 | 总不良预后率 |
---|---|---|---|---|
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 3(10.00) | 0 | 3(10.00) |
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 6(17.65) | 1(2.94) | 7(20.59) |
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 2(6.67) | 0 | 2(6.67) |
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 6(9.68) | 3(4.84) | 9(14.52) |
χ2 | 3.039 |
表6 4组不良预后比较 [例(%)]
Tab.6 Comparison of poor prognosis between the four groups
组别 | n | 出血转化 | 心血管事件 | 总不良预后率 |
---|---|---|---|---|
低rt-PA组 | 30 | 3(10.00) | 0 | 3(10.00) |
标rt-PA组 | 34 | 6(17.65) | 1(2.94) | 7(20.59) |
丁+低rt-PA组 | 30 | 2(6.67) | 0 | 2(6.67) |
丁+标rt-PA组 | 62 | 6(9.68) | 3(4.84) | 9(14.52) |
χ2 | 3.039 |
[1] | BAO H, GAO H R, PAN M L, et al. Comparative study on the efficacy and safety of alteplase and urokinase in the treatment of acute cerebral infarction[J]. Technol Health Care, 2021, 29(1):85-90. doi:10.3233/THC-202382. |
[2] | RABINSTEIN A A. Update on treatment of acute ischemic stroke[J]. Continuum (Minneap Minn), 2020, 26(2):268-286. doi:10.1212/CON.0000000000000840. |
[3] | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke[J]. N Engl J Med, 1995, 333(24):1581-1588. doi:10.1056/NEJM199512143332401. |
[4] | WANG R, ZENG J, WANG F, et al. Risk factors of hemorrhagic transformation after intravenous thrombolysis with rt-PA in acute cerebral infarction[J]. QJM, 2019, 112(5):323-326. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcy292. |
[5] | 张海燕, 巩守平, 吕博强, 等. 急性脑梗死rt-PA静脉溶栓后出血性转化危险因素的meta分析[J]. 西部医学, 2021, 33(2):223-230,234. |
ZHANG H Y, GONG S P, LYU B Q, et al. Risk factors of hemorrhagic transformation for acute cerebral infarction receiving intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator:a meta-analysis[J]. Med J West China, 2021, 33(2):223-230,234. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-3511.2021.02.012. | |
[6] | GE W Q, CHEN J, PAN H, et al. Analysis of risk factors increased hemorrhagic transformation after acute ischemic stroke[J]. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis, 2018, 27(12):3587-3590. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.08.028. |
[7] | 赵洁, 朴翔宇, 吴悦. 丁苯酞联合阿替普酶治疗急性缺血性脑卒中的临床效果及对患者血清炎性因子及神经递质水平的影响[J]. 中国医药, 2019, 14(4):553-557. |
ZHAO J, PIAO X Y, WU Y. Effect of butylphthalide combined with alteplase on acute ischemic stroke,serum inflammatory factors and neurotransmitters[J]. Chin Med, 2019, 14(4):553-557. doi:10.3760/j.issn.1673-4777.2019.04.019. | |
[8] | LYDEN P D, LU M, LEVINE S R, et al. A modified national institutes of health stroke scale for use in stroke clinical trials: preliminary reliability and validity[J]. Stroke, 2001, 32(6):1310-1317. doi:10.1161/01.STR.32.6.1310. |
[9] | 孙冲, 徐迪荣, 李碧磊. 改良Rankin量表在急性大面积脑梗死长期生存的预后价值[J]. 医学研究杂志, 2012, 41(12):179-182. |
SUN C, XU D R, LI B L. Prognostic value of modified rankin scale in the long-term survival in acute massive cerebral infarction[J]. J Med Res, 2012, 41(12):179-182. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-548X.2012.12.054. | |
[10] | 巫嘉陵, 安中平, 王世民, 等. 脑卒中患者日常生活活动能力量表的信度与效度研究[J]. 中国现代神经疾病杂志, 2009, 9(5):464-468. |
WU J L, AN Z P, WANG S M, et al. Study on reliability and validity of ADL Scale in patients with stroke[J]. Chin J Contemp Neurol Neurosurg, 2009, 9(5):464-468. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-6731.2009.05.014. | |
[11] | YANG S H, LIU R. Four decades of ischemic penumbra and its implication for ischemic stroke[J]. Transl Stroke Res, 2021, 7(5):1-9. doi:10.1007/s12975-021-00916-2. |
[12] | HUANG S S, ZHOU B, ZENG G X, et al. Neuroprotective effect and mechanism of butylphthalide after cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats[J]. Folia Neuropathol, 2021, 59(2):131-142. doi:10.5114/fn.2021.107667. |
[13] | 闵瑜, 吴媛媛, 燕铁斌. 改良Barthel指数(简体中文版)量表评定脑卒中患者日常生活活动能力的效度和信度研究[J]. 中华物理医学与康复杂志, 2008, 30(3):185-188. |
MIN Y, WU Y Y, YAN T B. Validity and reliability of the simplified Chinese version of modified Barthel index for Chinese stroke patients[J]. Chin J Phys Med Rehabil, 2008, 30(3):185-188. doi:10.3321/j.issn:0254-1424.2008.03.010. | |
[14] | HUANG S S, ZHOU B, ZENG G X, et al. Neuroprotective effect and mechanism of butylphthalide after cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats[J]. Folia Neuropathol, 2021, 59(2):131-142. doi:10.5114/fn.2021.107667. |
[15] | ZHANG C, CUI L L, HE W L, et al. Dl-3-n-butylphthalide promotes neurite outgrowth of primary cortical neurons by Sonic Hedgehog signaling via upregulating Gap43[J]. Exp Cell Res, 2021, 398(2):112420. doi:10.1016/j.yexcr.2020.112420. |
[16] | 靳磊, 李敏, 高坡, 等. 应用血小板参数和中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值预测早期急性脑梗死严重程度[J]. 中华老年心脑血管病杂志, 2020, 22(6):605-608. |
JIN L, LI M, GAO P, et al. Application of platelet parameters and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in predicting severity of early acute cerebral infarction[J]. Chin J Geriatr Heart Brain Vessel Dis, 2020, 22(6):605-608. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-0126.2020.06.012. | |
[17] | 沈和平, 韩晨阳, 俞晓翔, 等. 丁苯酞对于星型胶质细胞炎症反应的保护作用及缝隙连接蛋白Cx43表达的影响[J]. 中国现代应用药学, 2021, 38(5):566-571. |
SHEN H P, HAN C Y, YU X X, et al. Protective effect of Dl-3-n-butylphthalidle on inflammation of astrocytes and the expression of Connexin 43[J]. Chin J Mod Appl Pharm, 2021, 42(5):566-571. doi:10.13748/j.cnki.issn1007-7693.2021.05.010. | |
[18] | LATTANZI S, BRIGO F, TRINKA E, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in acute cerebral hemorrhage:a system review[J]. Translational stroke research, 2019, 10(2):137-145. doi:10.1007/s12975-018-0649-4. |
[19] | 张辰昊, 张佩兰, 陈岩, 等. 阿替普酶静脉溶栓过程中栓子溶解导致临床症状加重原因探讨[J]. 中国现代神经疾病杂志, 2013, 13(4):297-301. |
ZHANG C H, ZHANG P L, CHEN Y, et al. Investigation of the causes of clinical symptom aggravation in process of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase[J]. Chin J Contemp Neurol and Neurosurg, 2013, 13(4):297-301. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-6731.2013.04.009. | |
[20] | CHEN X Q, QIU K, LIU H, et al. Application and prospects of butylphthalide for the treatment of neurologic diseases[J]. Chin Med J, 2019, 132(12):1467. doi:10.1097/CM9.0000000000000289. |
[21] | WANG X, LI J, MOULLAALI T J, et al. Low-dose versus standard-dose alteplase in acute ischemic stroke in Asian stroke registries:an individual patient data pooling study[J]. Int J Stroke, 2019, 14(7):670-677. doi:10.1177/1747493019858777. |
[22] | 宋杰, 陈莹. 不同剂量阿替普酶静脉溶栓治疗急性脑梗死有效性和安全性对比[J]. 实用中西医结合临床, 2021, 21(16):117-118,120. |
SONG J, CHEN Y. Efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolytic therapy with different doses of alteplase for acute cerebral infarction[J]. Practical Clinical Journal of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, 2021, 21(16):117-118,120. doi:10.13638/j.issn.1671-4040.2021.16.058. | |
[23] | 李颖, 余曼, 伍绍强. 高龄超急性期脑梗死患者应用小剂量rt-PA静脉溶栓治疗的临床观察[J]. 老年医学与保健, 2018, 24(6):655-658. |
LI Y, YU M, WU S Q. Clinical effect of intravenous thrombolysis with low-dose rt-pa on the senile with hyperacute cerebral infarction[J]. Geriatr Heal Care, 2018, 24(6):655-658. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1008-8296.2018.06.026. | |
[24] | CHEN C H, TANG S C, CHEN Y W, et al. Effectiveness of standard-dose vs. low-dose alteplase for acute ischemic ctroke within 3-4.5 h[J]. Front Neurol, 2022, 13:763963. doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.763963. |
[1] | 张锡友, 郭一丹, 张春霞, 周晓玲, 贾萌, 石志华, 罗洋. 老年维持性血液透析患者高钾血症与不良预后事件相关性的临床研究[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(8): 840-844. |
[2] | 徐斌, 诸赟, 陈浩, 朱红俊, 高枫, 夏丛奕, 钟玲, 苏伟. 超滤治疗老年心力衰竭合并衰弱患者的有效性及安全性[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(7): 743-747. |
[3] | 韩琴, 韩秀丽, 陈伟然. 老年脑卒中患者康复治疗后抑郁障碍的影响因素分析[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(6): 639-642. |
[4] | 韩正怡, 李锐, 陈齐, 王家友, 盛奎, 宋洁, 张野. 收肌管阻滞联合全麻对老年全膝关节置换术患者术后疼痛和认知功能的影响[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(5): 523-527. |
[5] | 任燕, 陈善萍, 周莉华, 王凌霄, 管丽娟, 杨永学. 实验室衰弱指数对老年CAP住院患者并发脓毒症及脓毒性休克风险的预测价值[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(4): 416-421. |
[6] | 张晓旭, 杨文奇. 沙库巴曲缬沙坦治疗AMI后射血分数中间值心力衰竭的疗效研究[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(2): 177-181. |
[7] | 江洪洋, 樊世文, 刘铁龙, 谢丽萍. 个体化PEEP联合定期肺复张对行腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术老年患者术后肺不张的影响[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(2): 182-187. |
[8] | 陈慧敏, 贾洪峰, 江婷婷, 贾耀辉. 术中血糖波动和术后胰岛素抵抗对胸腔镜肺癌根治术后老年患者认知功能障碍的影响[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(2): 201-205. |
[9] | 周秀芬, 刘晖, 陈虹, 赵宗波. SAP患者GLI与外周血各指标变化的临床意义[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(12): 1286-1291. |
[10] | 刘鹏程, 方无杰, 王晓涛, 邓典峰. 天麻钩藤饮联合丁苯酞对急性脑梗死患者症状改善及血管弹性的影响[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(12): 1326-1330. |
[11] | 李基新, 王磊, 张宇航, 魏增伯, 杨建磊, 刘有军, 于同军. 踝关节镜联合闭合复位导向器与切开复位治疗三踝骨折的疗效比较[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(11): 1197-1201. |
[12] | 喻洪, 杨朝栋, 刘丹. ALT/ALP比值、PLR与老年脓毒症休克患者并发肝损伤的关系[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(11): 1211-1215. |
[13] | 李繁, 黎仕焕, 谢爽. 血清VCAM-1、PECAM-1水平与MMSE评分联合检测对老年全髋关节置换术患者术后谵妄的预测价值[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(10): 1046-1050. |
[14] | 陈玺龙, 王宏君, 宋征宇, 王静. 牛蒡苷元通过抑制HMGB1/TLR4/NF-κB通路减轻急性脑梗死大鼠的神经元损伤[J]. 天津医药, 2023, 51(8): 825-829. |
[15] | 聂亚蒙, 张小强, 冯鹏展, 丁雅倩. 依达拉奉右莰醇联合rt-PA静脉溶栓治疗超早期急性脑梗死的疗效及对预后的影响[J]. 天津医药, 2023, 51(7): 766-770. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||