急诊经桡动脉冠状动脉介入治疗疗效和安全性评价

Objectives To compare the safety and efficacy of radial artery access versus femoral artery access for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction population. Methods From June 2004 to December 2006, 446 patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous stenting were reviewed retrospectively. The radial artery approach was used in 242 patients, and the femoral artery approach in 204 patients. The success of the procedure, procedure duration, X-ray exposition, volume of contrast, incidence of major adverse cardiac events and complications were compared between the radial artery and femoral artery approach. Results Total procedure duration, X-ray exposition, the immediate success of the procedure and the proportion of patients with reperfusion time above 60min are higher in patients with radial artery acess than that with femoral artery access [(62. 1 ± 23. 4) min vs(56. 8 ± 16. 7)min,(2829. 4 ± 1365.2) mGY vs (2352. 3 ± 903.1) mGY, 4% vs 0.9% and 7.44% vs 2.94%respectively, all P ＜ 0. 05]. Conclusions In non-selected patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary stent implantation, the success rate of the radial artery approach is lower than the femoral artery approach and could prolong the reperfusion time. It is suitable to change artery access immediately if abnormality is found via radial artery access.

The efficacy and safety of transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction