目的研究置管溶栓联合球囊扩张导管碎栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成（DVT）的疗效及安全性。 方法回顾性分析2011年9月至2015年1月本院收治的82例急性下肢DVT患者的临床资料。将患者分成两组：A组行单纯经导管直接溶栓（CDT）治疗，共32例，其中男10例、女22例，平均年龄（56±15）岁；B组行CDT联合机械碎栓（球囊扩张导管碎栓）治疗，共50例，其中男18例、女32例，平均年龄（57±17）岁。比较2组治疗前后静脉通畅率、静脉通畅度评分、健侧和患侧下肢周径差，比较2组尿激酶用量及溶栓导管留置时间，以出血并发症、肺栓塞的发生率评价治疗的安全性。 结果2组共82例患者完成溶栓及碎栓疗程，B组较A组溶栓时间更短，A组平均9（7，12）d；B组平均5（4，7）d，2组差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）；B组较A组尿激酶用量更少，A组平均7.250（6.355，8.255）×106 U，B组平均4.925（3.715，5.810）×106 U，2组差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）；B组治疗后的静脉通畅度评分显著优于A组，A组65.0%（40.5%，86.5%），B组为100%（90%，100%），差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）。治疗后2组出血并发症发生率差异无统计学意义（P=0.0976）。2组患者随访时间3～18个月，A组随访率50.0%，B组随访率58.0%，均未发生肺动脉栓塞。 结论在下腔静脉滤器保护下，CDT联合球囊扩张导管碎栓治疗急性下肢DVT较单纯CDT治疗，溶栓效果好、尿激酶用量少、不增加肺栓塞及出血发生率。
【摘要】 目的 探讨健康教育路径在下腔静脉滤器（inferior vena cava filter，VCF）置入术患者中的应用效果。 方法 2008年1月－2010年5月，将62例VCF置入术患者随机分为观察组（32例）和对照组（30例），观察组采用健康教育路径进行健康教育，对照组患者采用常规健康教育。 结果 观察组患者的健康教育达标率明显高于对照组（Plt;0.05），焦虑发生率明显低于对照组。 结论 应用健康教育路径对VCF置入术患者实施，能提高患者对健康知识的掌握程度和效果，促进患者早日康复；同时可强化护患沟通，和谐护患关系。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the effect of health education pathway in patients treated with placement of inferior vena cava filter (VCF). Methods Sixty-two patients treated with placement of inferior VCF from January 2008 to May 2010 were randomly divided into experimental group (n=32) and control group (n=30). Health education pathway and routine general way were adopted respectively to treat patients in the experimental group and the control group. Results Standard-achieving rate of the health education in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (Plt;0.05), and the incidence of anxiety was also lower in the experimental group. Conclusion Health education pathway for patients treated with placement of inferior VCF can increase the patients’ health care knowledge, lessen patients’ anxiety, and strengthen the nurse-patient communication and harmonious relations.
【摘要】 目的 〖JP2〗评价腔静脉滤器植入联合足背静脉溶栓在下肢深静脉血栓（DVT）治疗中的疗效。 方法 2006年12月-2009年10月，对26 例下肢深静脉血栓患者行下腔静脉滤器植入术，并结合足背静脉溶栓治疗。 结果 26例患者均未出现大出血和致死性肺动脉栓塞等严重并发症，彩色多普勒超声显示17例患者下肢DVT 完全溶解，11例部分溶解。 结论 介入性综合治疗下肢DVT 是一种安全可行、疗效好的方法。【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the therapeutic effect of filter planting combining thrombolysis therapy through the dorsum pedis vein on patients with deep veins thrombosis of lower limb. Methods The clinical data of 26 patients from December 2006 to October 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. All the patients underwent filter planting combining thrombolysis therapy through the dorsum pedis vein. Results There was no serious complication such as hemorrhea or fatal pulmonary embolism. The phlebothrombosis was fully dissolved in 11 patients and partial dissolved in 17 patients. Conclusion Interventional combined therapy is safe and effective for deep venous thrombosis of lower limb.
Objective To summarize the probability of pulmonary embolism （PE） induced by lower extremity deep venous thrombosis （DVT） and investigate the role of vena cava filter （VCF） in preventing from PE. Methods The clinical data of 1 058 patients with lower extremity DVT from January 2005 to January 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. Results The PE rate was 3.21% （34/1 058） and the death rate was 1.42% （15/1 058） in 1 058 patients with lower extremity DVT. The VCF was implanted in 171 of 1 058 patients. The VCFs of 151 patients were implanted from femoral vein， 20 patients were implanted from jugular vein. The PE rates were 3.61% （32/887） and 1.17% （2/171） and the death rates were 1.69% （15/887） and 0 （0/171） in patients without VCF and with VCF， respectively. Both of them occurred in the first ten days. PE could keep as long as 35 d. The PE rate and death rate in the patients without VCF were significantly higher than those in the patients with VCF （P＜0.01）. The PE rates and death rates in both lower extremities DVT were higher than those in patients with the right and left ones （P＜0.05）， which in the right lower extremity were higher than those in the left one （P＜0.05）. The PE rate and death rate in the patients with lower extremity DVT combined with vena cava thrombosis were significantly higher than those in the patients with central type （P＜0.05）， which in the central type were significantly higher than those in the peripheral type （P＜0.05）， there were no significant differences between peripheral type and mixed pattern. The follow-up time was from 1 month to 7 years with （39±19） months， the patency rate of VCF was 98.7%. There were no filter migration， declination， and failure of expansion. Conclusions VCF can prevent from PE effectively， but the indications must be controlled.
目的探讨经腘静脉置溶栓导管灌注溶栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓形成（DVT）的临床应用价值。方法对28例急性DVT患者（其中2例合并肺动脉栓塞）在超声引导下经患肢腘静脉穿刺置入溶栓导管至髂、股静脉血栓中进行溶栓治疗，并对溶栓效果进行分析。 结果全组患者溶栓后症状明显改善，下肢肿胀消退，肺部症状缓解。溶栓后患、健侧大腿周径差〔(1.72±1.23) cm〕明显小于溶栓前〔(5.47±1.29) cm〕,差异有统计学意义(t=12.14，Plt;0.01)， 患肢大腿消肿率为91.58%; 溶栓后患、健侧小腿周径差〔(1.55±0.77) cm〕也明显小于溶栓前〔(5.04±1.32) cm〕，差异有统计学意义（t=13.81，Plt;0.01)，患肢小腿消肿率为84.92%。溶栓后静脉通畅评分〔(4.34±3.55)分〕明显低于溶栓前〔(15.23±4.64) 分〕，差异有统计学意义(t=6.42，Plt;0.01 )，溶栓后静脉平均通畅率为87.43%。 2例合并肺动脉栓塞患者中，1例栓子完全溶解，1例大部分溶解。 所有患者均无严重并发症。 25例患者获随访，随访1～12个月（平均7.16个月），无一例出现血栓再发。结论经腘静脉置管溶栓治疗急性DVT是一种安全、有效的治疗方法。
目的探讨下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)的治疗方法及经验。方法分析我院2007年1月至2010年1月期间237例DVT患者的临床资料，其中行以抗凝、祛聚为主的非手术治疗198例，行介入手术治疗39例。结果198例给予抗凝、祛聚为主的非手术治疗者中临床治愈85例(42.93%)，有效108例(54.55%)，无效5例(2.52%); 39例给予介入手术治疗(均先行下腔静脉滤器置入，然后行球囊导管取栓治疗33例，行介入溶栓6例)者均临床治愈(100%)。总有效率为97.89%（232/237)。对39例行介入手术治疗患者术后随访3～24个月(平均10个月)，2例患者出现下腔静脉阻塞并发下肢DVT，经抗凝、祛聚等治疗后症状缓解； 均未见滤器移位、肺栓塞等并发症。结论DVT患者介入治疗效果优于非手术治疗，早期诊断和合理的治疗方案是DVT治疗成功的关键。
Objective To explore the therapeutic effect of catheter-directed thrombolysis combined with vena cava filter on deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of lower extremity.Methods The clinical data of 65 patients with DVT of lower extremities from January 2008 to August 2009 were analyzed retrospectively, whose course of diseases were not more than 7 d and clinical type included central type and mixed type. Thirty-two cases were treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis combined with vena cava filter, while administrating treatment of anticoagulation and activating blood circulation to dissipate blood stasis, which were named as study group. Thirty-three cases were treated traditionally with thrombolysis, anticoagulation, and activating blood circulation to dissipate blood stasis, which were named as control group. The course of therapy was continued 10-14 d, then the efficacy in two groups patients was evaluated. Results It was (7.35±1.42) cm that circumference difference before treatment between affected extremties and unaffected extremties in study group, which of 3, 7, and 14 d after treatment was (4.21±1.12) cm， (2.87±0.98) cm, and (1.22±1.02) cm, respectively. Circumference difference between before and after treatment had significant difference in study group (Plt;0.01). It was (6.97±1.27) cm that circumference difference before treatment between affected extremties and unaffected extremties in control group, which of 3, 7, and 14 d after treatment was (5.72±1.31) cm, (4.58±0.88) cm, and (3.18±1.24) cm, respectively. Circumference difference between before treatment and 3, 7, and 14 d after treatment had significant difference in control group (Plt;0.05 or Plt;0.01). Circumference difference before treatment in two groups had no significant difference (Pgt;0.05). Circumference difference after treatment at different time points in two groups was significantly different, respectively (Plt;0.01). Circumference difference after treatment at different time points in study group was significantly less than that in control group, respectively (Plt;0.01). After 14 d, complete recanalization rate （71.88%, 23/32） and cure rate (71.88%, 23/32) of iliofemoral vein in study group were significant higher than that (36.36%, 12/33) in control group (Plt;0.01). No pulmonary embolism occurred. Conclusion In terms of ideal therapy targets of DVT of lower extremity, the catheterdirected thrombolysis combined with vena cava filter is obviously superior to traditional thrombolysis treatment.
Objective To discuss and evaluate the value of insertion of inferior vena cava filter in treating lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Methods Inferior vena cava filters were placed in 46 patients with lower extremity DVT prior treatment, 20 in which were treated by therapy with anticoagulation and thrombolysis, and therapy with pressure gradient, and the other 26 patients by operation and thrombolysis therapy, and therapy with pressure gradient. Whether patients occurred pulmonary embolism was observed and the form and site of filters were monitored by periodic fluoroscopy. Results Inferior vena cava filters were placed successfully in all patients, 38 cases were implanted permanence inferior vena cava filter, 8 cases were implanted temporary inferior vena cava filter. Symptoms and signs of DVT disappeared or remitted in 44/46 patients after treatment. None of pulmonary embolism was occurred. Follow up 2-24 months (average 13 months) for 36 cases with permanence inferior vena cava filter, there was no complication of the filter and pulmonary embolism occurred. Conclusions The method of inserting inferior vena cava filter is simple and safe, which can prevent pulmonary embolism effectually to offer sufficient safeguard for the treatment of DVT.