经桡动脉和股动脉途径行冠状动脉介入治疗疗效的对比研究  

Comparative Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention via the Radial Artery or the Femoral Artery Approach

作　　者：张正海[1] 郭金成[1] 张立新[1] 孙雨华[1] 甘舜进[1] 

机构地区：[1]首都医科大学潞河教学医院心内科,北京市101149

出　　处：《实用心脑肺血管病杂志》2013年第11期29-30,共2页Practical Journal of Cardiac Cerebral Pneumal and Vascular Disease

摘　　要：目的对比经桡动脉和股动脉途径行冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的临床疗效与安全性。方法选择2010年10月—2012年12月356例冠心病住院患者,其中198例经桡动脉途径行PCI患者作为桡动脉组、158例经股动脉途径行PCI患者作为股动脉组,观察两组手术操作时间、PCI成功率、外周血管并发症及心血管事件发生情况。结果两组患者手术操作时间、PCI成功率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);但桡动脉组外周血管并发症发生率(3.5%)低于股动脉组(15.8%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论经桡动脉途径和经股动脉途径行PCI临床疗效相似,但经桡动脉途径外周血管并发症发生率低,值得在临床推广应用。Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of the percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） through different approaches of radial artery or femoral artery. Methods 356 hospitalized patients with coronary artery disease were selected from October 2010 to December 2012, in which 198 cases through radial artery approach undergoing PCI as the ra- dial group, 158 cases through femoral artery approach undergoing PCI as a femoral group. The operation time, PCI success rate, peripheral vascular complications and the incidence of cardiovascular events of two groups were observed. Results The operative time, PCI success rate of two groups were compared, the difference was not statistically significant （P 〉 0. 05 ） ; However, the peripheral vascular complication rate of radial group （3.5%） was lower than that of femoral group （ 15.8% ）. Conclusion The clinical efficacy are similar for PCI through radial artery approach or through femoral artery approach, but through radial ar- tery approach has low complication rate, is worthy of clinical popularization and application.

关 键 词：桡动脉 股动脉 冠状血管 介入治疗 

分 类 号：R541.4[医药卫生—心血管疾病]