论文部分内容阅读
目的比较使用4F及6F造影导管经股动脉径路行冠状动脉造影的可行性。方法把疑诊冠心病病人409例分成两组,分别使用4F造影导管178例和6F造影导管231例行冠状动脉及左心室造影,对比两组病人手术成功率,术后止血压迫时间、开始活动时间、局部及全身并发症发生率等。结果两组病例造影成功率及完成造影时间大致相同,4F组造影剂使用量、术后止血压迫时间、卧床时间、穿刺点伤口皮下血肿形成、皮下淤斑、迷走神经反射发生率均明显低于6F组(P<0.01)。结论与6F动脉鞘及造影导管比较,使用4F动脉鞘及造影导管经股动脉经路行冠状动脉造影具有方便、可靠、损伤小、并发症少,病人可早期活动、痛苦小、容易接受的优点,可作为诊断性造影、门诊造影和介入术后复查首选方法。
Objective To compare the feasibility of coronary angiography with 4F and 6F angiography through femoral artery approach. Methods Four hundred and ninety-six patients with suspected coronary heart disease were divided into two groups. Coronary artery and left ventricle angiography were performed using 4F angiography catheter and 178 angiography catheter respectively. Comparing the success rate of operation, postoperative hemostatic oppression time, Time, local and systemic complications such as incidence. Results The imaging success rate and the time to complete imaging in both groups were the same. The dosage of contrast agent, the time of postoperative hemostasis, the time of bed rest, the formation of subcutaneous hematoma in subcutaneous wound, subcutaneous ecchymosis and vagal reflex in 4F group were all significantly lower than those in 6F Group (P <0.01). Conclusion Compared with 6F arterial sheath and angiography catheter, the use of 4F arterial sheath and contrast catheter via the femoral artery through coronary artery angiography is convenient, reliable, less injury, less complications, patients with early activity, pain and easy to accept advantages , Can be used as diagnostic radiography, outpatient angiography and the preferred method of postoperative intervention.