经桡动脉常规穿刺与经远端桡动脉穿刺行冠状动脉介入治疗冠心病的对比研究

Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention via radial artery and distal radial artery puncture on coronary disease

目的探讨经桡动脉常规穿刺与经远端桡动脉穿刺行冠状动脉介入治疗冠心病的效果。方法抽取2021年10月至2022年8月焦作煤业(集团)有限责任公司中央医院收治的行冠状动脉介入治疗的冠心病患者76例,按随机数字表法将其分为对照组与观察组,每组38例。对照组采取经桡动脉常规穿刺行冠状动脉介入术,观察组采取经远端桡动脉穿刺行冠状动脉介入术。比较两组穿刺操作差异、介入手术操作时间、压迫止血时间及术后住院时间,比较两组穿刺处并发症发生率及患者舒适度。结果观察组首次穿刺成功、次数、时间及介入手术操作时间与对照组比较,差异未见统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组压迫止血时间及介入后住院天数少于对照组(P<0.05);观察组患者术后桡动脉动脉闭塞、动脉血肿、血管过度扭曲及肢体疼痛或麻木等并发症发生率(5.3%,2/38)低于对照组(23.7%,9/38),P<0.05;观察组舒适度优于对照组(P<0.05)。结论经远端桡动脉与经桡动脉行冠状动脉介入术治疗冠心病疗效均较佳,但经远端桡动脉冠状动脉介入术更有助于减少冠状动脉介入术后并发症发生率并提高舒适度。

Objective To investigate the effect of percutaneous coronary intervention via conventional radial artery and distal radial artery puncture on coronary disease.Methods A total of 76 patients with coronary heart disease who underwent coronary intervention in Central Hospital of Jiaozuo Coal Industry(Group)Co.,Ltd.from October 2021 to August 2022 were selected,and they were divided into control group and observation group by random number table method,with 38 case in each group.The control group was treated by conventional percutaneous coronary intervention via radial artery.The observation group underwent coronary intervention via distal radial artery puncture.The difference in puncture operation,operation time,compression hemostasis time and postoperative hospital stay were compared between the two groups.The incidence of complications at the puncture site and comfort degree in the two groups were compared.Results There was no significant difference in the one-time puncture success rate,puncture times,length of puncture operation and length of surgery between the observation group and the control group(P>0.05).The compression hemostasis time and postoperative hospital stay in the observation group were significantly shorter than those in the control group(P<0.05).The incidence of postoperative complications,such as arterial thrombosis,arterial hematoma,vascular over-distortion and pain or numbness of the limbs,in the observation group(5.3%,2/38)was significantly lower than that in the control group(23.7%,9/38),P<0.05.The comfort degree of patients in the observation group was significantly better than that in the control group(P<0.05).Conclusions Both coronary artery intervention via distal radial artery and coronary artery intervention via radial artery have ideal effects on coronary heart disease,but the former is more helpful to reduce the incidence of complications after coronary intervention and improve comfort degree of patients.