Yusuf S W, Whitaker S C, Gregson R H, Wenham P W, Hopkinson B R, Makin G S
Department of Vascular Surgery, University Hospital, Nottingham, U.K.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1995 Aug;10(2):136-41. doi: 10.1016/s1078-5884(05)80104-2.
To compare the time required to achieve lysis with the pulse spray technique and the conventional slow continuous infusion technique.
Prospective randomised open Study.
Eighteen patients suitable for intra-arterial thrombolytic therapy with conventional and pulse spray technique were randomised 1:1 to receive either pulse spray thrombolysis with 0.33 mg/ml rt-PA injected as a bolus of 0.2 ml or conventional thrombolysis with 0.05 mg/ml rt-PA infused at a rate of 10 ml/h.
The age, duration of symptoms, length of occlusion and prethrombolysis ankle brachial pressure index were comparable in the two groups. The median duration of thrombolytic therapy in the pulse spray group was 195 min (range 90-1260) compared to 1390 min (range 300-2400) in the Conventional group. The difference between the two groups was significant, p < 0.002 (Mann-Whitney test).
Significantly shorter time is required to achieve local thrombolysis with pulse spray compared to the conventional infusion method.
比较脉冲喷射技术与传统缓慢持续输注技术实现溶栓所需的时间。
前瞻性随机开放研究。
18例适合采用传统技术和脉冲喷射技术进行动脉内溶栓治疗的患者按1:1随机分组，分别接受以0.2 ml推注方式注射0.33 mg/ml 重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂（rt-PA）的脉冲喷射溶栓治疗，或接受以10 ml/h速率输注0.05 mg/ml rt-PA的传统溶栓治疗。
两组患者的年龄、症状持续时间、闭塞长度和溶栓前踝臂压力指数具有可比性。脉冲喷射组溶栓治疗的中位持续时间为195分钟（范围90 - 1260分钟），而传统组为1390分钟（范围300 - 2400分钟）。两组之间的差异具有显著性，p < 0.002（曼-惠特尼检验）。
与传统输注方法相比，脉冲喷射实现局部溶栓所需时间显著更短。
