经桡动脉途径和股动脉途径行冠心病介入治疗的回顾性分析

Retrospective analysis of transradial and transfemoral percutaneous coronary interventional therapy

目的探讨经桡动脉路径与经股动脉路径行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的差异。方法回顾性分析经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的262例冠心病患者资料,其中经桡动脉路径组134例(观察组),经股动脉路径组128例(对照组),比较两组间穿刺置管成功率、置管时间、手术成功率、手术时间、卧床时间、平均住院天数及术后血管并发症的发生率。结果观察组与对照组穿刺置管成功率分别为97.8%和100%、手术成功率分别为97.0%和98.4%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);桡动脉组假性动脉瘤、迷走反射发生率、穿刺点血肿、平均卧床时间、平均住院天数显著低于股动脉组。结论经桡动脉途径PCI手术是一种安全、有效和可行的方法,与股动脉途径比较,经桡动脉途径可减少术后血管并发症的发生,减少卧床时间及住院时间。

Objective To explore the differences between transradial percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） and transfemoral PCI. Methods The clinical data of 262 patients with coronary heart disease （CHD） who had undergone PCI were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into transradial group （n = 134） and transfemoral group （n = 128） according to therapeutic approach. The differences in puncture success rate, puncture time, surgical success rate, operation time, bed rest time, postoperative hospital stay and vascular complication incidence were compared between the two groups. Results The differences in puncture success rate （97.8% vs 100% ） and surgical success rate （97.0% vs 98.4% ） were not statistically significant between the two group （ P 〉 0.05 ）. Pseudoaneurysm, vagal reflex, puncture site hematoma, bed rest time and hospital stay were significantly less in the transradial group than in the transfemoral group. Conclusion Transradial PCI is a safe, effective and feasible method to CHD, compared with transfemoral approach. It helps to reduce vascular complication incidence, hospitalization time and bed rest time.