International Journal of Clinical Research

Objective To analyze the evaluation effect of clinical evaluation and coronary angiography evaluation on vascular recanalization after thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Methods Fifty patients with acute infarction admitted to our hospital from June 2023 to June 2024 were selected as the study subjects. All patients received thrombolytic therapy within 3 hours of onset. Compare the vascular recanalization rate between clinical and coronary angiography evaluation methods, and use coronary angiography as the gold standard to observe the sensitivity and specificity of clinical evaluation methods. Results There was no significant difference (P>0.05) between clinical evaluation methods and coronary angiography in assessing vascular recanalization rate; Using coronary angiography evaluation results as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of the clinical evaluation method were 92.86% and 87.50%, respectively. Conclusion After thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction, the clinical evaluation method and coronary angiography have similar results in evaluating vascular recanalization rate, and both methods are applicable to clinical practice.

Acute myocardial infarction; Thrombolytic therapy; Vascular recanalization; Clinical evaluation; Coronary angiography