祝 鹏, 谢 静, 任 晖, 刘胜强, 屈兰燕, 郑时康, 王甲文. 冠心病患者冠状动脉介入治疗两种路径的比较[J]. 心脏杂志, 2013, 25(2): 194-196.
    引用本文: 祝 鹏, 谢 静, 任 晖, 刘胜强, 屈兰燕, 郑时康, 王甲文. 冠心病患者冠状动脉介入治疗两种路径的比较[J]. 心脏杂志, 2013, 25(2): 194-196.
    shu
    Comparism study on percutaneous coronary intervention procedure of CAD patients through two defferent artery accesses[J]. Chinese Heart Journal, 2013, 25(2): 194-196.
    Citation: Comparism study on percutaneous coronary intervention procedure of CAD patients through two defferent artery accesses[J]. Chinese Heart Journal, 2013, 25(2): 194-196.
    shu

    冠心病患者冠状动脉介入治疗两种路径的比较

    Comparism study on percutaneous coronary intervention procedure of CAD patients through two defferent artery accesses

      摘要
    • 摘要: 目的:比较冠心病患者冠状动脉介入治疗两种路径，以说明经桡动脉路径的优越性。方法: 选择行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的423例冠心病患者，按采用的路径分为经桡动脉路径组（桡动脉组，213例）和经股动脉路径组（股动脉组，210例），分析两组间首次穿刺置管成功率、手术成功率、平均住院日及术后并发症的发生率。结果： 两组间首次穿刺置管成功率、手术成功率比较无显著差异。桡动脉组平均住院日、局部血肿、尿潴留、失眠、烦躁及并发症的总发生率均显著低于股动脉组，两组间比较有显著性差异（P<0.05）。结论： 经桡动脉路径行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗安全可行，可以作为首选路径。

       

      Abstract: AIM:To explore the advantages of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) through transradial artery access. METHODS: A total of 423 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention treatment were divided into two groups: patient group of 213 patients with PCI through transradial artery access and control group of 210 patients with PCI through transfemoral artery. The rate of one-time successful catheterization, success rate of PCI, mean hospital stay and incidence rates of postoperative complications were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The incidence rate of postoperative complications in case group was much lower than in control group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous coronary intervention treatment through transradial artery access is safe and feasible and should be the first choice approach.

       

      • HTML全文
      • 参考文献(0)
      • 相关文章
      • 施引文献
    • 资源附件(0)

    /

    返回文章
    返回