目的:对比鼻烟窝和前臂动静脉内瘘功能良好(fistula used successfully for hemodialysis,FUSH)率。方法:选取我院尿毒症患者103例,根据动静脉内瘘的部位的不同分为鼻烟窝组和前臂组,回顾性比较两组内瘘功能良好率的情况。结果:前臂组...目的:对比鼻烟窝和前臂动静脉内瘘功能良好(fistula used successfully for hemodialysis,FUSH)率。方法:选取我院尿毒症患者103例,根据动静脉内瘘的部位的不同分为鼻烟窝组和前臂组,回顾性比较两组内瘘功能良好率的情况。结果:前臂组的内瘘功能良好率高于鼻烟窝组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:鼻烟窝和前臂内瘘均是理想的血管通路,前臂组内瘘功能良好率更高,但是整体血管通路寿命需要更长时间的统计分析。展开更多
<strong>Background: </strong><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Radial artery catheterization is a fundamental approach that is used as a procedural access in the different catheterization ...<strong>Background: </strong><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Radial artery catheterization is a fundamental approach that is used as a procedural access in the different catheterization laboratories so our study is a</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">compari</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">s</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">on between distal radial artery approach and convential traditional transradial approach to explore the fesibility and safety of coronary angiography and percutanous coronary. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Aim of the Work: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The purpose of our study is a comparison between the conventional transradial approach versus distal transradial approach for diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Materials and Methods: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">This </span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">is </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">a</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">prospective study that included 60 patients who presented to the Cardiology departments in Ahmed Maher</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Teaching Hospital from December 2018 until October 2019 to perform planned Transradial Coronary Angiography and/or coronary intervention</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">.</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">T</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">he study </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">is </span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">divided into two groups, group (A) included 30 patients who undergone the procedure through the distal radial approach (The Anatomical Snuffbox)</span><b></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">and group (B) included 30 patients who undergone the procedure through the traditional Transradial approach. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Results: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Thrombosis and hospital stay are higher significant in radial group than distal radial group and patient satisfaction is higher significant in distal radial group than traditional Transradial while there is no significant difference between both groups as regard Success and failure rate of cannulation, bleeding, </span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">i</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">nfection and duration of the procedure. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Conclusion: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">coronary procedures by distal radial approach have minor access complication versus the conventional Transradial approach.</span></span>展开更多
文摘目的:对比鼻烟窝和前臂动静脉内瘘功能良好(fistula used successfully for hemodialysis,FUSH)率。方法:选取我院尿毒症患者103例,根据动静脉内瘘的部位的不同分为鼻烟窝组和前臂组,回顾性比较两组内瘘功能良好率的情况。结果:前臂组的内瘘功能良好率高于鼻烟窝组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:鼻烟窝和前臂内瘘均是理想的血管通路,前臂组内瘘功能良好率更高,但是整体血管通路寿命需要更长时间的统计分析。
文摘<strong>Background: </strong><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Radial artery catheterization is a fundamental approach that is used as a procedural access in the different catheterization laboratories so our study is a</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">compari</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">s</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">on between distal radial artery approach and convential traditional transradial approach to explore the fesibility and safety of coronary angiography and percutanous coronary. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Aim of the Work: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The purpose of our study is a comparison between the conventional transradial approach versus distal transradial approach for diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Materials and Methods: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">This </span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">is </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">a</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">prospective study that included 60 patients who presented to the Cardiology departments in Ahmed Maher</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Teaching Hospital from December 2018 until October 2019 to perform planned Transradial Coronary Angiography and/or coronary intervention</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">.</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">T</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">he study </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">is </span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">divided into two groups, group (A) included 30 patients who undergone the procedure through the distal radial approach (The Anatomical Snuffbox)</span><b></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">and group (B) included 30 patients who undergone the procedure through the traditional Transradial approach. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Results: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Thrombosis and hospital stay are higher significant in radial group than distal radial group and patient satisfaction is higher significant in distal radial group than traditional Transradial while there is no significant difference between both groups as regard Success and failure rate of cannulation, bleeding, </span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">i</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">nfection and duration of the procedure. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Conclusion: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">coronary procedures by distal radial approach have minor access complication versus the conventional Transradial approach.</span></span>