论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者经桡动脉与经股动脉穿刺行急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的优缺点。方法比较经桡动脉介入(TRI组,54例)和经股动脉介入(TFI组,49例)两组行急诊PCI治疗相关资料。结果两组基本特征、血管穿刺时间及成功率、PCI成功率、麻醉至球囊扩张时间均无明显差异(P>0.05);而TRI组并发症发生率明显低于TFI组(3.8%vs10.2%)(P<0.01),住院时间明显短于TFI组(P<0.05)。结论TRI行急诊PCI是安全、有效的方法;与TFI比较,并发症少、住院时间短。
Objective To investigate the advantages and disadvantages of emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing transradial and trans femoral arterial puncture. Methods The data of two groups were compared in the two groups by transradial intervention (TRI group, 54 cases) and the femoral artery interposition (TFI group, 49 cases). Results There were no significant differences between the two groups in the basic features, the time and success rate of vascular puncture, the success rate of PCI, and the duration of anesthesia to balloon dilation (P> 0.05). However, the incidence of complications in TRI group was significantly lower than that in TFI group (3.8% vs10. 2%) (P <0.01). The hospitalization time was significantly shorter than that of TFI group (P <0.05). Conclusion TRI emergency PCI is a safe and effective method. Compared with TFI, there are fewer complications and shorter hospital stay.