目的:研究比较经桡动脉和股动脉两种途径行冠状动脉造影(coronary angiography,CAG)和介入治疗(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)的优缺点。方法:择期行CAG和PCI病人670例,按途径随机分为桡动脉组320例(包括2例股动脉途径CAG失败而改为桡动脉途径),股动脉组350例(包括10例桡动脉途径CAG失败而改为股动脉途径)。比较两组CAG和PCI的手术操作成功率和并发症。结果:CAG手术成功率:桡动脉组96.9%,股动脉组99.4%,差异无统计学意义。PCI手术成功率:桡动脉组91.8%,股动脉组96.7%,差异无统计学意义。但桡动脉组有6例病人改从股动脉途径完成PCI。外周血管并发症:桡动脉组1.9%,股动脉22.6%,差异有统计学意义。结论:桡动脉途径与传统的股动脉途径相比能减少外周血管并发症,但手术操作的难度有所增加。 Objective: To compare the advantages and disadvantages of coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between the two approaches via transradial and femoral arteries. Methods: Six hundred and seventy patients undergoing CAG and PCI were randomly divided into three groups: radial artery group (320 cases) (including two failed femoral artery and radial artery), femoral artery group (350 cases), including 10 radial artery CAG failed to change the femoral artery approach). The success rate and complications of the two groups of CAG and PCI were compared. Results: The success rate of CAG surgery was 96.9% in radial artery group and 99.4% in femoral artery group, the difference was not statistically significant. PCI success rate: radial artery group 91.8%, femoral artery group 96.7%, the difference was not statistically significant. However, 6 patients in the radial artery group switched to PCI from the femoral artery. Peripheral vascular complications: radial artery group 1.9%, femoral artery 22.6%, the difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: The radial artery approach can reduce the peripheral vascular complications compared with the traditional femoral artery approach, but the operation difficulty is increased.