论文部分内容阅读
目的评价经桡动脉和股动脉途径行冠状动脉造影术的优缺点。方法选择行冠状动脉造影术的病人510例,按途径不同分为桡动脉组(356例)和股动脉组(154例),对比观察其手术操作时间,X光照时间,成功率,并发症发生率,住院时间,并进行统计学分析。结果手术操作时间分别为:(21.23±10.37)min和(19.88±11.13)min(P>0.05),X光照时间分别为:(6.16±3.67)min和(5.78±3.66)min(P>0.05),成功率分别为98.60%和99.35%(P>0.05),血管并发症分别为3.09%和9.74%(P<0.01),住院时间为:(5±3.20)d和(7±5.69)d(P<0.001)。结论经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉造影术是一种安全有效的介入诊疗方法,可替代股动脉途径。且其具有不需卧床、痛苦小、并发症少、住院时间短等优点,在临床上应作为冠状动脉介入诊疗的主要途径加以推广。
Objective To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of coronary angiography via the radial artery and femoral artery. Methods A total of 510 patients undergoing coronary angiography were divided into radial artery group (356 cases) and femoral artery group (154 cases) according to different ways. The operation time, X-ray time, success rate and complication Rate, hospital stay, and statistical analysis. Results The operation time was (21.23 ± 10.37) min and (19.88 ± 11.13) min respectively (P> 0.05). The time of X-ray irradiation was (6.16 ± 3.67) min and (5.78 ± 3.66) min respectively , The success rates were 98.60% and 99.35% respectively (P> 0.05), vascular complications were 3.09% and 9.74% (P <0.01), and the hospital stay was (5 ± 3.20) days and (7 ± 5.69) days P <0.001). Conclusion Transradial approach coronary angiography is a safe and effective method of interventional diagnosis and treatment, alternative femoral artery approach. And it has no bed rest, little pain, fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, etc., should be clinically as the main approach to coronary intervention to be promoted.