Deep Vein Thrombosis Catheter Thrombolysis Compared With The Clinical Curative Effect Of Thrombolytic Drugs

Objective: This topic through to the traditional thrombolytic drugs and catheterthrombolysis statistical analysis and comparison of the clinical efficacy of DVTthrombolysis treatment criteria established for the future to provide the referenceMethods: Will be from2013.1-2014.1in patients with DVT in onset time was dividedinto two groups: a group of thrombosis in2to5days (early patients with DVT);Another group of thrombosis>5days (chronic DVT patients). Random use drugthrombolysis and catheter thrombolysis thrombolytic therapy. And then will be dividedinto two groups of patients with drug thrombolysis and catheter thrombolysis group,through comparing the curative effect of two groups of patients, determine drugthrombolysis and catheter thrombolysis in patients with DVT and early thrombolysis inthe treatment of patients with chronic DVT with or without statistical significance.Results: Catheter thrombolysis in patients with acute DVT after thrombolysis group1week plane pupil compared with the contralateral weeks path difference for (2.33±0.98) cm, thrombolytic drugs to dissolve group compared with the contralateral circleskillfully to the plane of1week after week path difference for (2.96±1.32) cm,comparison between the two groups was statistically significant difference (t=2.216, P<0.05). In patients with chronic DVT catheter thrombolysis group thrombolysis after1week of plane than the contralateral circle skillfully weeks radius (4.35±1.83) cm;Drug thrombolysis thrombolytic group after1week of plane than the contralateral circleskillfully weeks radius (4.21±2.01) cm; There was no statistically significant difference is compared between two groups (t=1.363, P>1.363). Long-term follow-up results: inpatients with acute DVT forward venous catheter thrombolysis group is patency rate(68.2±15.4)%, drug long-term intravenous thrombolysis group patency rate (63.8±16.3)%, there was no statistically significant difference is compared between twogroups (X2=6.028, P>6.028). Chronic DVT in patients with long-term intravenouscatheter thrombolysis group is patency rate (43.2±12.6)%, drug thrombolysis group ofchronic DVT patients after venous patency rate (39.8±13.3)%, there was nostatistically significant difference is compared between two groups (X2=6.395, P>6.395); Catheter thrombolysis in patients with acute DVT group deep venous valvularfunction BaoCunLv (68.6±12.3)%, drug fibrinolytic function in deep venous valveBaoCunLv (70.8±10.1)%, there was no statistically significant difference is comparedbetween two groups (X2=3.033, P>3.033). Chronic DVT in patients with deepvenous valvular function BaoCunLv catheter thrombolysis group (36.6±13.7)%, drugfibrinolytic function in deep venous valve BaoCunLv (33.8±12.4)%, there was nostatistically significant difference is compared between two groups (X2=6.038, P>6.038). Catheter thrombolysis group and drug thrombolysis thrombolytic success ratecomparison, catheter thrombolysis group average time of7.6days of treatment,thrombolysis,41cases were11cases of thrombolysis failure, success rate of78.8%.Drug thrombolysis group average time of13.5days,39cases of thrombolysis issuccessful,36cases of thrombolysis failure, success rate is52%.Conclusion: Catheter thrombolysis in patients with acute DVT of thrombolysis therewas an obvious thrombolysis in medicine, the success rate and reduce the time oftreatment, drug dose and risk of bleeding associated complications. Chronic DVTpatients both catheter thrombolysis method and the success rate of thrombolysisthrombolytic drugs are not significant, the long-term curative effect is poor, principle oftreatment is to improve the clinical symptoms and reduce complications.