摘要
目的:研究比较经桡动脉和股动脉两种途径行冠状动脉造影(coronary angiography,CAG)和介入治疗(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)的优缺点。方法:择期行CAG和PCI病人670例,按途径随机分为桡动脉组320例(包括2例股动脉途径CAG失败而改为桡动脉途径),股动脉组350例(包括10例桡动脉途径CAG失败而改为股动脉途径)。比较两组CAG和PCI的手术操作成功率和并发症。结果:CAG手术成功率:桡动脉组96.9%,股动脉组99.4%,差异无统计学意义。PCI手术成功率:桡动脉组91.8%,股动脉组96.7%,差异无统计学意义。但桡动脉组有6例病人改从股动脉途径完成PCI。外周血管并发症:桡动脉组1.9%,股动脉22.6%,差异有统计学意义。结论:桡动脉途径与传统的股动脉途径相比能减少外周血管并发症,但手术操作的难度有所增加。
Objective：To compare radial approach with femoral approach for coronary angiography（CAG）and percutaneous coronary intervention （PCD. Methods：670 cases undergoing CAG and /or PCI were divided into two groups, radial approach group（n= 320）and femoral approach group （n=350）. The procedure success rates and complication were compared and analyzed statistically. Results： The success rate of CAG was not different between two groups（96.9 % vs 99.4 %, P〉0.05）. The success rate of PCI was not different between two groups（91.8 % vs 96.7 %, P〉 0.05）. But 6 patients undergoing PCI in the radial group crossed over to the femoral group. The incidence of local complication in the femoral group was significantly higher than that in the radial group（22.6% vs 1.9%, P〈0. 001）. Conclusions： The radial approach indeed reduced the local complication in comparison with the standard transfemoral access, but the radial access was technically more challenging.
出处
《中国冶金工业医学杂志》
2010年第1期16-18,共3页
Chinese Medical Journal of Metallurgical industry
关键词
挠动脉
股动脉
冠状动脉造影
冠状动脉介入治疗
并发症
Radial artery
Femoral artery
Coronary angiography
Percutaneous coronary intervention
Complication
