冠心病患者经桡动脉和股动脉介入治疗的效果比较被引量：2

导出

摘要目的探讨经桡动脉途径和股动脉途径对冠心病患者进行介入治疗,比较两种途径的临床疗效。方法对2009年10月至2011年6月在本院进行治疗的85例冠心病患者随机分为两组,其中桡动脉组(43例)患者经桡动脉途径进行介入治疗,股动脉组(42例)患者经股动脉途径进行介入治疗,比较两组患者的手术时间、手术成功率及术后并发症发生率等。结果桡动脉组和股动脉组患者的手术时间分别为(48.98±11.87)min和(50.16±12.35)min,手术成功率分别为95.34%和97.61%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);桡动脉组穿刺时间长于股动脉组,术后发生局部血肿及迷走神经反射少于股动脉组患者,而动脉痉挛多于股动脉组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对冠心病患者进行介入治疗,经桡动脉和经股动脉两种途径疗效都较好,但经桡动脉途径术后并发症较少,具有很好的临床应用价值。

作者吴开霞李勇葛恒松

机构地区江苏沭阳县人民医院心内科

出处《中国医药指南》 2012年第32期506-507,共2页 Guide of China Medicine

关键词冠心病桡动脉股动脉临床疗效

分类号 R541.4 [医药卫生—心血管疾病]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献2

1傅向华,马宁,刘君,吴伟力,谷新顺,李世强,姜云发,屈长强,李亮,郝国桢,刘晓堃,王占启,田英平.经桡动脉与股动脉入径直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死的对比研究[J].中华心血管病杂志,2003,31(8):573-577. 被引量：54
2马长生.老年冠心病介入治疗的评价[J].中华老年多器官疾病杂志,2003,2(1):13-16. 被引量：10

二级参考文献26

1[1]Batchelor WB, Anstrom K J, Muhlbaier LH, et al.Contemporary outcome trends in the elderly undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: results in 7 472 octogenarians. National Cardiovascular Network Collaboration. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2000,36: 723-730.
2[2]Klein LW, Block P, Brindis RG, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry: development of a nomogram predictive of in-hospital mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2002, 40: 394-402.
3[3]The TIME investigators. Trial of Invasive versus Medical Therapy in Elderly Patients with Chronic Symptomatic Coronary-artery Disease (TIME): a randomised trial. Lancet, 2001, 358:951-957.
4[4]Graham MM, Ghali WA, Faris PD, et al. Survival after coronary revascularization in the elderly. Circulation, 2002,105 : 2378-2384.
5[5]de Boer MJ, Ottervanger JP, van't Hof AWJ, et al. Reperfusion therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: a randomized comparison of primary angioplasty and thrombolytic therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2002, 39:1723-1728.
6[6]DeGeare VS, Stone GW, Grines L, et al. Angiographic and clinical characteristics associated with increased inhospital mortality in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous intervention (a pooled analysis of the Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Trials). Am J Cardiol, 2000, 86: 30-34.
7[7]Minai K, Horie H, Takahashi M, et al. Long-term outcome of primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for low-risk acute myocardial infarction in patients older than 80 years: a single-center, open, randomized trial. Am Heart J, 2002,143: 497-505.
8[8]Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, White HD, et al. One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock.JAMA, 2001, 285:190-192.
9[9]Chauhan MS, Kuntz RE, Ho KL, et al. Coronary artery stenting in the aged. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2001, 37: 856-862.
10[10]Munoz JC, Alonso J J, Duran JM, et al. Coronary stent implantation in patients older than 75 years of age: clinical profile and initial and long-term (3 years) outcome. Am Heart J, 2002, 143:620-626.