经股动脉途径与经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉介入治疗临床比较的研究  

Clinical studies on different coronary artery interventional therapies through femoral artery orradial artery approaches

作　　者：何峰[1] 张寰[1] 李焕明[1] 刘勇[1] 邢晓春[1] 顾秀峰[1] 罗芝宽[1] 

机构地区：[1]天津市第四中心医院心内科,300140

出　　处：《中华流行病学杂志》2012年第5期534-535,共2页Chinese Journal of Epidemiology

摘　　要：目的比较经股动脉途径和经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉（冠脉）介入治疗的临床疗效。方法360例患者随机分为经股动脉介入（TFI）组和经桡动脉介入（TRI）组，观察分析术后两组患者的血管病变特征、可行性因素（介入治疗成功率、穿刺时间、手术时间及住院时间）及并发症情况。结果两组患者血管病变特征比较，差异均无统计学意义（P值均〉0．05）；TFI组和TRI组介入成功率分别为97．78％和96．67％，两组的介入治疗成功率、手术时间比较，差异无统计学意义（P值均〉0．05）；而两组的平均穿刺时间、平均住院时间及并发症发生率的比较，差异有统计学意义（P值均〈0．05）。结论经股动脉途径和桡动脉途径行冠脉介入治疗的可行性及成功率相当；但经桡动脉行冠脉介入治疗的并发症较少，安全性高，在临床上具有推广和应用价值。Objective To compare the clinical efficacies regarding femoral artery or radial artery approaches on coronary artery interventional therapies. Methods 360 patients were randomly divided into intervention group via femoral artery （TFI） or transradial coronary intervention （TRl） group. Postoperative observation on the two said groups of patients with vascular lesion characteristics, feasibility factors （success rate of interventional therapy puncture, time of operation and hospitalization） and complications, were made. Results There were no significant differences between the two groups on the characteristics of vascular lesion （P〉0.05）. Success rates of the two groups were 97.78% and 96.67% respectively. The differences on success rate, time of operation were not statistically significant （P〉0.05） while the average time of puncture, the mean duration of hospitalization and the rates of complications were significantly different （P〈0.05）. Conclusion The two methods under comparison had similar success rate and feasibility. However, the complications related to radial artery interventional therapy were much less than the femoral artery interventional therapy. As having better safety, radial artery interventional therapy seemed to have applicable value on clinical practice.

关 键 词：冠状动脉介入治疗 股动脉 桡动脉 

分 类 号：R541.4[医药卫生—心血管疾病]