[摘要] 目的：比较替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷在急性冠脉综合征（ACS）患者经

[Abstract] Objective: To compare the effect of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: From February 2017 to January 2019, 146 patients with ACS treated by PCI in our hospital were randomly divided into clopidogrel group and ticagrelor group, 73 cases each, and were divided into two groups according to the grouping method. Patients were treated with clopidogrel and ticagrelor, comparing the platelet aggregation rate (PAR) before treatment and after 24h, 7d, and 28d, and comparing the clinical efficacy and the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. Results: Before treatment, there was no significant difference in blood PAR between the two groups (P> 0.05). After treatment, the PAR of the two groups at the above time points decreased significantly (P <0.05). The ticagrelor group was significantly lower than clopidogrel Gray group (P <0.05), and with time, the rate of decline in this group was significantly greater than that of clopidogrel group (P <0.05); its effective rate (91.78%) was significantly higher than that of clopidogrel group (79.45%); The incidence of major cardiovascular adverse events (2.74%) was significantly lower than that in the clopidogrel group (17.81%) (P <0.05). Conclusion: Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor has a more significant improvement effect on platelet aggregation status in ACS patients, its clinical efficacy is significantly better than the former, and it is more safe and reliable.

Objective: To compare the effects of tegreo and clopidogrel in postoperative treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: 146 PATIENTS OF ACS TREATED IN THE HOSPITAL FROM FEBRUARY 2017 TO JANUARY 2019 WERE RANDOMLY DIVIDED INTO CHLORPIDOGDE GROUP AND TEGRELO GROUP, EACH 73 CASES WERE GIVEN IN GROUPS OF CHLORGRESSIANDANDAND AND TEGRELO TREATMENT, AND COMPARED THE PRE-TREATMENT AND TREATMENT OF 24H, 7D, 28D AFTER THE HOSPITAL, AND THE TWO GROUPS OF PLATEGLIN CONCENTRATION (PAR) AND THE TWO CLINICAL OUTCOMES WERE COMPARED. Results: Prior to treatment, there was no significant difference between the two groups of blood PAR (P.0.05), and after treatment, the above-mentioned time-point PARRs in both groups decreased significantly compared to pre-treatment (P 0.05), and the tegrogroup was significantly lower than the chlorpyridire group (P 0.0) 5), and over time, the group declined significantly faster than the Clopidogret group (P 0.05); Significantly lower than the Clopidogret group (17.81%) (P 0.05). Conclusion: Compared with clopidogrel, the improvement effect of platelet aggregation in ACS patients was more significant, and its clinical efficacy was significantly better than that of the former, and it was more safe and reliable.

[Abstract] Objective: To compare the effect of tegrilol and clopidogrel in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: 146 patients with ACS after PCI in our hospital from February 2017 to January 2019 were randomly divided into two groups: clopidogrel group and tegrilol group. 73 patients in each group were treated with clopidogrel and tegrilol respectively according to the grouping method. The platelet aggregation rate (PAR), clinical effect and adverse event rate of the two groups were compared before treatment and 24, 7 and 28 days after treatment 。 Results: before treatment, there was no significant difference in par between the two groups (P > 0.05). After treatment, par in the two groups decreased significantly (P < 0.05) compared with that before treatment, and in tegrerol group was significantly lower than that in clopidogrel group (P < 0.05), and with the change of time, the rate of decrease in this group was significantly higher than that in clopidogrel group (P < 0.05), and the effective rate was significantly higher (91.78%) than that in clopidogrel group (79.45) %(P < 0.05). Conclusion: compared with clopidogrel, tegrarol is more effective in improving platelet aggregation in ACS patients, and its clinical effect is significantly better than the former, and it is more safe and reliable.<br>