左、右侧桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗的效果比较

Comparison of left and right radial artery approach for percutaneous coronary intervention

目的观察比较左、右侧桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗的临床疗效及安全性。方法选取医院收治的行桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗患者120例作为研究对象,按照不同入路途径分为左侧组和右侧组,每组60例。左侧组行左侧桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗,右侧组行右侧桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗,比较2组患者治疗后的临床效果及不良事件发生率。结果 2组患者的穿刺成功率、手术成功率、血管开通时间、手术时间、X线透视时间、对比剂用量、5 F指引导管使用率、冠状动脉病变情况、IL-6、IL-8、术中不良事件发生率及术后不良事件发生率等临床指标比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论左侧桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗与右侧桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗的临床疗效相近,均是安全、有效、可行的治疗方法,值得临床推广与应用。

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of left radial artery approach for percutaneous coro- nary intervention and fight radial artery approach for coronary intervention. Methods 120 cases of radial artery approach for coronary intervention patients were selected in our hospital as the research object, according to the different approach, and di- vided into left and fight group,60 cases in each group. The left group underwent left radial artery approach for coronary inter- vention, the fight group underwent the right radial artery approach for coronary intervention. The clinical effects and incidence of adverse events were compared between the 2 groups after treatment. Results There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the success rate of puncture, the success rate of surgery, the patency time, operation time, fluoroscopy time, con- trast agent dosage ,5 F guiding catheter usage, adverse events of coronary artery disease, IL-6, IL-8,incidence of intraoperative and postoperative adverse event rate and other clinical indicators （ P 〉 0.05 ）. Conclusion The clinical curative effect of cor- onary intervention in the left radial artery and the right coronary intervention is similar. They are safe, effective and feasible treatment method, and worthy of clinical popularization and application.