摘要
目的:比较经桡动脉介入治疗(TRI)和经股动脉介入治疗(TFI)静脉桥血管病变的临床疗效。方法:研究对象为我院2006-01至2009-12的31例TRI(桡动脉组)和115例TFI(股动脉组)的静脉桥血管病变患者,比较TRI和TFI患者临床特征、操作特点及住院期间临床疗效。结果:桡动脉组和股动脉组的X线曝光时间[(15.6±3.7)分比(14.5±3.4)分]、操作时间[(34.6±15.2)分比(37.4±18.8)分]、造影剂用量[(225±120)ml比(263±130)ml],差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。桡动脉组与股动脉组操作成功率(93.5%比95.6%,P>0.05),差异无统计学意义;而股动脉组血管径路并发症较桡动脉组显著增加(3.2%比15.7%,P=0.04),差异有统计学意义。桡动脉组和股动脉组住院期间主要不良心脏事件(0%比2.0%)、死亡(0%比0%)、心肌梗死(0%比0.9%)、靶病变血运重建(0%比0.9%)发生率均类似,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。结论:与TFI相比,TRI静脉桥血管病变安全有效,且血管径路并发症明显减少,但造影与介入同期完成比例较少。
Objective：To compare the clinical outcomes in patients with saphenous vein graft lesions who were treated by transradial intervention（TRI） and transfemoral intervention（TFI）. Methods：We retrospectively studied two groups of patients who received either TRI or TFI treatment in our hospital from 2006 to 2009.TRI group,n=31 and TFI group,n=115.The clinical and procedural characteristics,the in-hospital major adverse cardiac events（MACE） were recorded and compared between two groups. Results：TRI group and TFI group had the mean X-ray exposure time as（15.6±3.7） vs.（14.5±3.4） min,the mean procedural time as（34.6±15.2） vs.（37.4±18.8） min,and the cost of contrast volume as（225±120） vs.（263±130） ml,P0.05 respectively.The procedural success rate in TRI group and TFI group as 93.5% vs.95.6%,P0.05.While the vascular access site complication was higher in the TFI group than that in TRI group as 15.7% vs.3.2%,P=0.04.There were no significant differences for the other clinical characteristics between TRI group and TFI group,the in-hospital MACE as 0% vs.2.0%,death as 0% vs.0%,myocardial infarction as 0% vs.0.9%,the target lesion revascularization as 0% vs.0.9%,P 0.05 respectively. Conclusion：TRI is a safe and effective treatment in patients with saphenous vein graft lesions;it has lower vascular access site complication than TFI.
出处
《中国循环杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2012年第2期103-106,共4页
Chinese Circulation Journal
