摘要
目的比较经不同穿刺途径行经皮冠状动脉介入术的优缺点。方法选择冠心病患者132例,随机分为3组,肱动脉组、桡动脉组和股动脉组,比较3组患者平均术后住院时间、插入冠状动脉成功率、穿刺部位血肿发生率、迷走反射发生率等指标。结果肱动脉组和桡动脉组平均术后住院时间与股动脉组间差别均有显著性意义(P<0.01),肱动脉组和桡动脉组血肿及迷走反射发生率较股动脉组少(P<0.05)。3组患者插入冠状动脉的成功率间差别无显著性意义(P>0.05)。结论经肱动脉、经桡动脉与传统的经股动脉途径一样安全可行,且并发症更少,经济实用,更易为患者所接受。
Objective To investigate the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） procedure by different pathways. Methods Totally 132 patients with coronary artery disease treated with PCI in our hospital were randomly divided into 3 groups： group A was treated via brachial artery, group B via radial artery, and group C via femoral artery. The duration of operation, hospitalization time, successful rate of puncture, local hemorrhage rate, vascular injury, and presence of vagal reflex were analyzed. Results The average hospitalization times post - operationally in the group A and B was significantly less than that in group C （ P 〈0. 01 ） , and the prevalence of hemotoma and vagal reflex in the group A and B were lower in group C （ P 〈 0. 05）, The successful rate of puncture was similar among the 3 the groups （ P 〉 0. 05 ）. Conclusion PCIs via brachial artery and radial artery were as safe as via femoral artery procedure, and they easier accepted by patients because of the less complication and lower cost.
出处
《中国全科医学》
CAS
CSCD
2006年第17期1417-1418,共2页
Chinese General Practice
关键词
经皮冠状动脉PCI术
肱动脉
股动脉
桡动脉
Percutaneous artery intervention
Brachial artery
Femoral artery
Radial artery
