普通造影导丝代替交换导丝经桡动脉途径PCI治疗对比分析  

Comparative Analysis of Common Guide Wire versus Exchange Guide Wire in PCI Patients Undergoing Transradial Artery Approach

作　　者：王艳飞[1] 任越[1] 刘海波[2] 刘亚宁[1] 冯翠娜[1] 

机构地区：[1]河北大学附属医院心内科,保定市071000 [2]中国医学科学院阜外心血管病医院心内科,北京市100037

出　　处：《广西医学》2014年第11期1577-1579,共3页Guangxi Medical Journal

摘　　要：目的观察经桡动脉途径行经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗时应用普通造影导丝代替交换导丝进行指引导管交换的临床效果及安全性。方法需行PCI治疗患者112例,随机分为两组,每组56例。交换导丝组应用泰尔茂超滑交换导丝,普通导丝组应用泰尔茂普通超滑导丝。比较冠状动脉造影结束后取交换导丝或普通导丝沿造影导管送入主动脉根部并撤出造影导管留置导丝过程的透视时间(PT1)、送入至撤出造影导管时间(T1);PCI术前沿留置交换导丝或普通导丝送入PCI指引导管至主动脉根部的透视时间(PT2)、送入指引导管至主动脉根部时间(T2);总透视时间(PT):PT1与PT2之和;总的时间(T):T1与T2之和;两组的费用、并发症情况。结果普通导丝组PT1、T1、PT、T2、T均显著短于交换导丝组(P<0.01);普通导丝组PT2明显长于交换导丝组(P<0.01);交换导丝组费用明显多于普通导丝组;两组患者血管并发症比较无差异(P>0.05)。结论经桡动脉途径进行PCI治疗时,应用普通超滑导丝代替交换导丝进行指引导管交换所用透视时间少,简便易行,经济实用,安全性与交换导丝相当。Objective To study the safety and clinical efficacy of common guide wire instead of exchange guide wire for guiding catheter exchange in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention（ PCI） by transradial artery approach. Methods One hundred and twelve patients requiring a PCI procedure were randomly assigned into two groups,with 56 cases in each group. TERUMO ultra-smooth exchange guide wire was used in the exchange guide wire group and TERUMO general ultra-smooth guide wire was used in common guide wire group. To perform a comparative analysis on the perspective time from guide wire delivering into the aortic root and retrieving resident wire（ PT1） at end of coronary anagiography（ CAG）,CAG catheter delivering and retrieving time（ T1）,perspective time of guide wire delivering into resident catheter to aortic root before PCI（ PT2）,time of guide catheter delivering into aortic root（ T2）,total perspective time（ PT） ： the sum of PT1 and PT2,the total time（ T） ： the sum of T1 and T2,the costs and complications of two groups. Results PT1,T1,PT,T2 and T in the common guide wire group were significantly shorter than those in the exchange guide group（ P〈0. 01）. PT2 in the common guide wire group was significantly longer than that in the exchange guide group（ P〈0. 01）. The costs of guide wire in the exchange guide wire group was significantly more than that in the common guide wire group. But there was no significant difference in the complications between two groups（ P〉0. 05）.Conclusion During PCI treatment via transradial artery approach,the application of common ultra-smooth guide wire instead of exchange guide wire is of less perspective time,convenient,easy,economical and practical. Its security is as same as that of exchange guide wire.

关 键 词：冠状动脉造影 交换导丝 超滑导丝 桡动脉 经皮冠状动脉介入治疗 

分 类 号：R459.9[医药卫生—治疗学] R541.4[医药卫生—临床医学]