论文部分内容阅读
目的通过对经桡动脉与股动脉途径行冠状动脉造影(CAG)及介入治疗(PCI)的对比观察,探讨经桡动脉途径行CAG及PCI的可行性及安全性。方法选取行CAG及PCI的患者共204例,按入路血管分为桡动脉组93例和股动脉组111例,对比手术成功率、手术操作时间、血管并发症发生率及躯体不适发生率,并进行统计学分析。结果桡动脉组手术成功率与股动脉组比较无显著性差异(P>0.05),手术操作时间、冠脉各支植入支架情况2组比较无明显著性差异(P>0.05);但桡动脉组的血管并发症发生率及躯体不适发生率明显低于股动脉组。结论与股动脉途径比较,经桡动脉途径行冠脉诊疗具有并发症少、患者舒适度高的优点,值得临床推广。
Objective To investigate the feasibility and safety of transradial approach to CAG and PCI through comparison of coronary angiography (CAG) and interventional therapy (PCI) via the radial artery and femoral artery. Methods A total of 204 patients undergoing CAG and PCI were enrolled. The patients were divided into radial artery group (n = 93) and femoral artery group (n = 111) according to the approach. The operative success rate, operative time, incidence of vascular complications and the incidence of somatic discomfort were compared. And statistical analysis. Results The success rate of operation in radial artery group was not significantly different from that in femoral artery group (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05) Arterial vascular complications and body discomfort incidence was significantly lower than the femoral artery group. Conclusion Compared with the femoral artery approach, the radial artery approach coronary artery diagnosis and treatment with less complications, patients with the advantages of high comfort, worthy of clinical promotion.