经桡动脉和股动脉途径行冠状动脉造影对比分析  

Comparison between transradial and transfermoral approach coronary angiogra-phy

作　　者：关李华[1] 陈永生[1] 梁海军[1] 

机构地区：[1]河南省郑州市郑州大学第五附属医院心内科,450052

出　　处：《中国实用医药》2009年第24期29-31,共3页China Practical Medicine

摘　　要：目的比较经桡动脉和股动脉途径行冠状动脉造影的优缺点。方法本院自2000年1月至2008年12月行冠状动脉造影患者506例,按股动脉途径或桡动脉途径分为两组,比较手术操作时间、加压包扎时间、成功率、并发症发生率等,并进行统计学分析。结果手术操作时间分别为(11.2±3.4)min和(10.8±3.6)min;加压包扎时间分别为(2.52±1.28)min和(20.34±6.11)min,穿刺成功率分别为97.9%和100%,并发症发生率分别1.2%和10.8%。结论经桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入诊疗具有止血方便、血管并发症少、无体位限制、患者痛苦小,特别对于心功能不全、支架术后复查患者是一种理想的冠状动脉造影途径。Objective To comparison advantages and disadvantages of coronary artery angiography via radial vs femoral artery. Methods 506cases undergoing coronary artery angiography were divided into two groups by the artery approaches, radial or femoral, operating time, X-ray irradiation time, success rate of puncture and complications were observed. Results As for the two groups, the operating time was （11. 2 ± 3. 4） min vs（ 10. 8 ± 3. 6 ） min （ P 〉 0. 05 ） , the compression bandaging time was （ 2. 52 ± 1.28 ） min vs （ 20. 34 ± 6. 11 ） min（P〉 0.05 ）, the success rate of punc-ture97.9% vs100% （ P 〉 0. 05 ）, and complications occurrence rate wasl. 2% vs10. 8% （ P 〈 0.01 ）. Conclusions Transradial approach for coronary artery angiography is more comfort for patients, the bleeding was easily con-trolled, vessel complications was less, the patients did not need to be kept in bed and less suffering, better for cardiacinsufficiency or review stent after operation.

关 键 词：桡动脉 股动脉 冠状动脉造影 

分 类 号：R541.4[医药卫生—心血管疾病] R816.2[医药卫生—内科学]