论文部分内容阅读
目的比较经股动脉与桡动脉两种途径冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)急性心肌梗死的疗效。方法将广东医学院第三附属医院收治的120例心肌梗死患者按照动脉穿刺途径分为桡动脉组60例和股动脉组60例,对两组间的动脉穿刺点压迫时间、PCI的成功率、穿刺点局部并发症、下肢静脉血栓及低血压、尿潴留的发生率进行对比分析。结果股动脉组成功率为93.33%,桡动脉组成功率为95.00%。两组PCI的成功率、下肢静脉血栓比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);穿刺点压迫时间、穿刺点局部的并发症、低血压及尿潴留的发生率,桡动脉组与股动脉组比较,桡动脉显著少于股动脉组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论经桡动脉与股动脉途径行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死成功率相似,但经桡动脉途径行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死血管并发症少,有利于有效安全的抗凝治疗,值得临床推广。
Objective To compare the efficacy of transcatheter arterial and radial arterial coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction (PCI). Methods A total of 120 patients with myocardial infarction admitted to the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Medical College were divided into radial artery group (60 cases) and femoral artery group (60 cases) according to the method of arterial puncture. The compression time of arterial puncture point, success rate of PCI, Puncture point of local complications, lower extremity venous thrombosis and hypotension, urinary retention were compared. Results The femoral artery power was 93.33% and the radial artery power was 95.00%. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the success rate of PCI and the lower extremity venous thrombosis (P> 0.05); the puncture time, puncture site complications, the incidence of hypotension and urinary retention, radial artery group and femoral artery group The radial artery was significantly less than the femoral artery group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusions The successful rate of transradial and femoral arterial approach for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction is similar. However, the transradial approach to percutaneous coronary intervention in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with fewer vascular complications is beneficial to effective and safe anticoagulation therapy. Clinical promotion.