经桡动脉与股动脉两种路径介入治疗冠心病的对比研究  

Comparative study of percutaneous coronary intervention via transradial artery and transfemoral artery in the treatment of coronary artery disease

作　　者：谢静[1] 祝鹏[1] 任晖[1] 刘胜强[1] 马晶晶[1] 刘菲[1] 周俊[1] 宋大坤[1] 屈兰燕[1] 郑时康[1] 王甲文[1] 

机构地区：[1]安康市中心医院心内科,陕西安康725000

出　　处：《海南医学》2013年第6期803-805,共3页Hainan Medical Journal

摘　　要：目的探讨经桡动脉路径行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的优越性。方法回顾分析经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的423例冠心病患者资料,其中经桡动脉路径组213例(观察组),经股动脉路径组210例(对照组),比较两组间首次穿刺置管成功率、手术成功率、平均住院天数及术后并发症的发生率。结果观察组与对照组首次穿刺置管成功率(96.8%vs98.7%)、手术成功率(98.2%vs99.0%)比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);平均住院天数[(6.12±0.67)dvs(9.02±0.81)d]、局部血肿(2/12)、尿潴留(0/18)、失眠(2/20)、烦躁(3/14)及并发症的总发生率(5.6%vs37.1%)比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论经桡动脉路径行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗安全可行,可以作为首选路径。Objective To investigate the advantages of percutaneous coronary intervention（PCI） via transradial artery.Methods The clinical data of 423 patients of coronary artery disease who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention was analyzed retrospectively,of which 213 were treated with PCI via transradial artery（the study group） and 210 received PCI via transfemoral artery（the control group）.The rate of one-time successful catheterization,the successful rate of PCI,the mean length of hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.Results There was no statistically significant difference between the study group and the control group in the rate of one-time successful catheterization（96.8% vs 98.7%） and the successful rate of PCI（98.2% vs 99.0%）,P0.05.Statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in the mean length of hospital stay [（6.12±0.67）vs（9.02±0.81）],the incidence of local hematoma（2 vs 12）,urinary retention（0 vs 18）,insomnia（2 vs 20）,irritability（3 vs 14）,the total incidence of postoperative complications（5.6% vs 37.1%）,P0.05.Conclusion Percutaneous coronary intervention via transradial artery was safe and feasible,which should be the first choice for treating coronary artery disease.

关 键 词：冠心病 动脉介入治疗术 并发症 ALLEN试验 

分 类 号：R541.4[医药卫生—心血管疾病]