期刊文献+

冠心病患者冠状动脉介入治疗两种路径的比较 被引量:3

Comparism study on percutaneous coronary intervention procedure of CAD patients through two defferent artery accesses
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的:比较冠心病患者冠状动脉介入治疗两种路径,以说明经桡动脉路径的优越性。方法:选择行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的423例冠心病患者,按采用的路径分为经桡动脉路径组(桡动脉组,213例)和经股动脉路径组(股动脉组,210例),分析两组间首次穿刺置管成功率、手术成功率、平均住院日及术后并发症的发生率。结果:两组间首次穿刺置管成功率、手术成功率比较无显著差异。桡动脉组平均住院日、局部血肿、尿潴留、失眠、烦躁及并发症的总发生率均显著低于股动脉组,两组间比较有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论:经桡动脉路径行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗安全可行,可以作为首选路径。 AIM: To explore the advantages of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) through tran- sradial artery access. METHODS: A total of 423 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention treatment were divided into two groups: patient group of 213 patients with PCI through transradial artery access and control group of 210 patients with PCI through transfemoral artery. The rate of one-time suc- cessful catheterization, success rate of PCI, mean hospital stay and incidence rates of postoperative com- plications were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The incidence rate of postoperative complications in case group was much lower than in control group (P 〈 0. 05 ). CONCLUSION : Percutaneous coronary intervention treatment approach. through transradial artery access is safe and feasible and should be the first choice
出处 《心脏杂志》 CAS 2013年第2期194-196,共3页 Chinese Heart Journal
关键词 冠状动脉疾病 经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术 并发症 经桡动脉介入 coronary disease percutaneous coronary intervention complications transfemoral coronaryintervention
  • 相关文献

参考文献11

二级参考文献42

  • 1中华医学会神经病学分会脑血管病学组急性缺血性脑卒中诊治指南撰写组.中国急性缺血性脑卒中诊治指南2010[J].中国医学前沿杂志(电子版),2010,2(4):50-59. 被引量:1974
  • 2姚刚,周芳,章宏伟,汤建平.正常成人尺、桡动脉供血优势的临床意义[J].江苏医药,2006,32(3):223-224. 被引量:15
  • 3屈健,项军,赵勇,何凌宇,崔云惠,张春香,毕玉洁,吴敏,张艳玲,徐卫东,叶福林,梅健,万向荣.75岁以上老年冠心病患者的冠状动脉介入治疗[J].东南国防医药,2007,9(2):88-90. 被引量:5
  • 4Eichh6fer J, Horlick E, Ivanov J, et al. Decreased complication rates using the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of routine stent ing and glycoprotein platelet Ⅱ b/Ⅲ a inhibitor use: a large single center experience. Am Heart J, 2008,156(5) :864-870.
  • 5Berry C, Kelly J, Cobbe SM, et al. Comparison of femoral bleed- ing complications after coronary angiography versus percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol, 2004,94(3) :361 -363.
  • 6Michel C, Larry PY, Leblanc G, et al. Transradial approach for diagnostic angiography. J Radiol, 2004,85(6 Pt 1):783-786.
  • 7Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, et al. A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty bythe radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study. J Am Coll Cardiol, 1997,29(6) : 1269-1275.
  • 8Saito S, Tanaka S, Hiroe Y, et al. Comparative study on tran sradial approach vs. transfemoral approach in primary stent im plantation for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results of the test for myocardial infarction by prospective unicenter ran domization for access sites (TEMPURA) trial. Catheter Cardio vasc Interv, 2003,59(1) :26-33.
  • 9Yang YJ, Kandzari DE, Gao Z, et al. Transradial versus trans femoral method of pereutaneous coronary revascularization for un protected left main coronary artery disease: comparison of proce dural and late term outcomes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2010, 3 (10) : 1035-1042.
  • 10Yip HK, Chung SY, Chai HT, et al. Safety and efficacy of tran sradial vs transfemoral arterial primary coronary angioplasty for a cute myocardial infarction: single-center experience. Circ J 2009,73(11) :2050 2055.

共引文献98

同被引文献11

引证文献3

二级引证文献9

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部