目的：对比经导管溶栓与经患肢足背静脉顺行溶栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓形成的疗效及安全性。方法回顾性分析60例经造影明确诊断的急性下肢深静脉血栓形成患者的临床资料，其中采用经导管溶栓治疗的患者为A组（30例），采用经患肢足背静脉顺行溶栓治疗的患者为B组（30例）。对比两组患者的治疗效果、患肢消肿率、深静脉通畅度等。结果两组均成功完成溶栓治疗。患肢消肿率A组为（82.39％±16.28％），B组为（62.58％±18.87％）；静脉通畅度A组为（62.18％±18.39％）， B组为（39.28％±23.36％），差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论经导管溶栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓形成较经患肢足背静脉顺行溶栓疗效好，可部分取代经患肢足背静脉顺行溶栓治疗。%Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and trans-dorsalis pedis vein thrombolysis in treating lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (LEDVT). Methods The clinical data of 60 patients who were diagnosed as acute LEDVT by lower extremity venography were retrospectively analyzed. Group A consisted of 30 patients treated with CDT and group B consisted of 30 patients treated with trans-dorsalis pedis vein thrombolysis. The treatment effect, detumescence rate of illness limb and patency rate of deep vein of group A were compared with those of group B. ResuIts The thrombolysis therapy of group A and group B was conducted successfully. The detumescence rate of illness limb of goup A was (82.39%±16.28%) while that of group B was (62.58%±18.87%) .The patency rate of deep vein of goup A was (62.18%±18.39%) while that of group B was (39.28%±23.36%) .There were signi昀cant differences between group A and group B in terms of detumescence rate of illness limb and patency rate of deep vein (P<0.05). ConcIusion CDT with higher curative effect for acute LEDVT can partly displace trans-dorsalis pedis vein thrombolysis in treating acute LEDVT.
展开▼
