论文部分内容阅读
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 coronary artery interventional therapy with left and right radial artery approaches. Methods Totally 120 patients undergoing coronary artery interventional therapy with radial artery in our hospital were selected as the study subjects. There were 60 patients in each group according to different routes of approach. The left side of the left radial artery group coronary intervention, the right group right radial artery coronary intervention, the two groups of patients after treatment, the clinical effect and incidence of adverse events. Results The successful rate of puncture, the success rate of operation, the time of opening of the blood vessel, the operation time, the time of X-ray, the amount of contrast agent, the catheterization rate of 5 F guide, the coronary lesion, IL-6 and IL- In the incidence of adverse events and postoperative adverse events such as clinical indicators, the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). Conclusion The clinical effects of the left radial artery coronary intervention and the right radial coronary artery intervention are similar, all of which are safe, effective and feasible. It is worthy of clinical promotion and application.