经皮桡动脉与股动脉穿刺行冠状动脉介入治疗的临床对比分析  

Comparative analysis of the transradial and transfemoral approach for coronary intervention

作　　者：王立新[1] 刘涛[1] 

机构地区：[1]安徽省阜阳市第二人民医院心血管内科,阜阳236015

出　　处：《临床医学》2013年第6期14-16,共3页Clinical Medicine

摘　　要：目的观察并比较经桡动脉与股动脉穿刺行冠状动脉介入治疗的优缺点,分析经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉介入诊疗的可行性、安全性。方法随机选择行冠状动脉介入手术的患者200例,其中观察组(经桡动脉穿刺组)100例,对照组(经股动脉穿刺组)100例。比较两组患者的置管成功率、术中和术后局部疼痛情况、术后并发症、患者术后舒适度、手术成功率及住院时间。结果经桡动脉穿刺与经股动脉穿刺行冠状动脉介入手术相比较,两组置管成功率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),经桡动脉组术后并发症少(P<0.01),桡动脉穿刺组术后患者即可下床活动,术后疼痛轻于对照组,住院时间低于对照组(P值<0.01)。桡动脉组PCI成功率为94.8%,与股动脉组(97.2%)相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论经皮桡动脉穿刺行冠状动脉介入诊疗安全有效,疼痛小,更加舒适,术后不需卧床,并发症发生率低,可以作为冠状动脉介入诊疗的一个较好的选择。Objective To compare the advantages and disadvantages of coronary interventional procedures between the transradial and transfemoral approach and to evalute the feasibility,safety and success rates of transradial cononary intervention.Methods Two hundred patients underwent coronary interventional procedures were randomly divided into observation group（transradial group,100 cases） and control group（transfemoral group,100 cases）.The success rate of catheterization,in traoperative and postoperative local pain,complication and postoperative comfort and hospitalization duration were compared.Results The success rate of catheterization was not different between the two approchs（P＆gt;0.05）.The complication rate was lower（P＆lt;0.01）and postoperative pain was less（P＆lt;0.01）,the hospitalization time was shorter（P＆lt;0.01）in transradial group.In addition,there was no requirement of rest on the bed in transradial group.The total success rate of PCI was 94.8% in tranradial group and 97.2% in transfemoral group,there was no significant difference（P＆gt;0.05）.Conclusion The transradial approach coronary intervention is safe and effective,with less postoperative pain after operation and has less influence on patients’ comfort and no requirement of rest on the bed.

关 键 词：桡动脉 股动脉 经皮冠状动脉介入手术 

分 类 号：R543[医药卫生—心血管疾病]