经桡动脉和股动脉穿刺冠状动脉介入治疗的对比研究

A comparative study on transradial vs transfemoral artery access for percutaneous coronary intervention

目的对冠心病患者经桡动脉和股动脉穿刺行冠状动脉介人的临床安全性、可行性及疗效进行对比。方法选择行冠状动脉介入的冠心病患者138例,根据PCI操作途径分为桡动脉组(68例)和股动脉组(70例)。比较两组的操作时间和疗效以及术后出血、血肿等并发症。结果桡动脉组和股动脉组在穿刺时间、球囊开始扩张时间无明显差异。术后桡动脉组发生迷走反射及穿刺部位血肿明显少于股动脉组。但经股动脉透视时间短,不易发生血管痉挛。结论经桡动脉和股动脉途径行PCI疗效相似,股动脉操作更加习惯和熟练。

Objective To compare the feasibility, safety and outcome of transradial artery with transfemoral artery access for percutaneous coronary intervention（PCI）. Methods 138 patients were randomly into transradial artery access for PCI and transfemoral artery access for PCI. The operation time, outcomes and complications of the operation were compared between two groups.Results The operation time and first balloon dilation time had no significant difference between the two groups. Incidence of access site complications including hemorrhage and hematoma were significantly lower in transradial group than in transfemoral group. But X ray exposure time was longer in transradial group than in the transfemoral group, and atery spasm of 7.4% cases in transradial group was happened. Conclusion The duration and effect by transradial artery access for coronary intervention were similar to those by transfemoral artery access for coronary intervention. The operation of transfemoral artery access is more proficient.