经桡动脉与经股动脉途径行急诊PCI的对比研究

Comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction

目的探讨急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者经桡动脉与经股动脉穿刺行急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的优缺点。方法比较经桡动脉介入(TRI组,54例)和经股动脉介入(TFI组,49例)两组行急诊PCI治疗相关资料。结果两组基本特征、血管穿刺时间及成功率、PCI成功率、麻醉至球囊扩张时间均无明显差异(P>0.05);而TRI组并发症发生率明显低于TFI组(3.8%vs10.2%)(P<0.01),住院时间明显短于TFI组(P<0.05)。结论TRI行急诊PCI是安全、有效的方法;与TFI比较,并发症少、住院时间短。

Objective To evaluate the safety and success rates of emergent percutaneous coronary intervention（PCI）via transradial and transfemoral approaches in patients with acute myocardial infarction（AMI）.Methods The data of PCI via transradial approach in 54 AMI cases（group TRI）were compared with that via transfemoral approach in 49 AMI cases（group TFI）.Results There were no significant differences between the two groups in basic characteristics,the time for vascular puncture,the success rates of vascular access and PCI,and the time from anesthesia to balloon placemen（P0.05）.The complication was lower in groupTRI than that in group TFI（3.7% vs.10.2%）（P0.01）.So did the total hospital stay（P0.05）.Conclusion The TCI via transradial approach is safe and effective with less complication and shorter hospital stay compared to TCI via transfemoral approach.