经桡动脉和股动脉途径行冠状动脉造影和介入治疗的对照研究

目的:比较经桡动脉和股动脉途径行冠状动脉造影术(CAG)和经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)的优缺点,探讨经桡动脉途径的安全性和有效性。方法:选择行CAG和(或)PCI患者214例为研究对象,按途径分为两组,桡动脉组103例,股动脉组111例。比较两组手术成功率、并发症发生率、手术操作时间和住院时间。结果:桡动脉组手术成功率、CAG操作时间、PCI操作时间与股动脉组比较,无显著性差异(P>0.05);桡动脉组血管相关并发症发生率、止血时间、住院时间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01,P<0.05)。结论:与经股动脉途径比较,经桡动脉途径行CAG及PCI,术后并发症减少、止血时间短、住院时间短,费用降低、患者依从性高,是一种安全、有效的方法,值得推广。

Objectives：To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of coronary angiography（CAG） and percutaneous Coronary intervention（PCI） via radial and femoral approaches. Methods： 214 cases treated with CAG and/or PCI in our hospital from February 2006 to February 2008 were divided into two groups ： radial approach grou （ Group R, n = 103 ） and femoral approach group （ GroupF, n = 111 ）. The success rate, complication rate, operating time and hospitalization time were compared and analyzed statistically. Results ： The success rate, the operating time of CAG（ P 〉 0. 05 ） or PCI （ P 〉 0. 05 ） between two groups. The total vascular complication rate （ P 〈 0. 01 ） was fewer and the styptic powder（ P 〈 0. 01 ）, the hospitalization time（P 〈 0. 05 ） were shorter in Group R than in Group F. Conclusion：There are less complications,shortern styptic powder, fewer expenses,higher complicance performing CAG as comparison with trans -femoral arttry approach, it is safe and efficienoy trans - radial artory CAG and PCT. The method is worth recommending,