经桡动脉与经股动脉途径冠状动脉造影效果研究  

Comparison of the effect between coronary angiography via transradial and transfemoral pathway

作　　者：周炜[1] 韩志华[2] 葛恒[2] 赵子周[1] 程杰军[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院放射科,上海200001 [2]上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院心内科,上海200001

出　　处：《医学影像学杂志》2009年第11期1402-1404,共3页Journal of Medical Imaging

基　　金：上海市重点学科建设项目资助;项目编号:S30203

摘　　要：目的:探讨经桡动脉与经股动脉途径穿刺行冠状动脉介入造影的效果研究。方法:同时期216例拟行冠状动脉造影的前瞻性对照,经桡动脉组106例,对照组(经股动脉组)110例,对比观察其成功率、并发症、X线曝光时间及对比剂用量等。结果:两组间X线曝光时间、对比剂用量差异无显著性,经桡动脉组穿刺成功率稍低于经股动脉组(95.4%vs100%,P<0.05),而并发症则经桡动脉组低于经股动脉组(3.0%vs 8.2%,P<0.05)。结论:经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉是安全、有效的方法。Objective：To evalute the effect between coronary angiography via transradial and transfemoral pathway.Methods：The study compared the procedures of transradial approach coronary intervention in 106 patients with transfemoral approach coronary intervention in 110 patients.Results：The procedure time（71.3±21.3 vs 70.5±20.7,P＆gt;0.05）,fluo-roscopy time（20.5±7.6 vs 19.9±7.2,P＆gt;0.05）,and amount of radio graphic contrast（102.8±13.4 vs 111.2±14.7,P＆gt;0.05） were not different between two groups. The success rater of procedure was slighdy lower in transradial group than in tmnffemoral group （95.4% vs 100%, P 〈 0.05）. The complication was lower in transradial group（3.0% vs 8.2%, P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion： The transradial approach coronary interven- tion is safe and effective.

关 键 词：经桡动脉途径 冠状动脉造影 

分 类 号：R816.2[医药卫生—放射医学]