经桡动脉或股动脉行冠状动脉介入治疗的效果比较

目的 比较经桡动脉与股动脉穿刺行冠状动脉介入诊疗的优缺点,以提供给医护人员及患者更好的选择.方法 随机选择行冠状动脉介入诊疗的患者160例,其中观察组（经桡动脉穿刺组）80例,对照组（经股动脉穿刺组）80例.比较两组患者的置管成功率、术中和术后局部疼痛情况、术后并发症、患者术后舒适度及住院时间.结果 经桡动脉穿刺与经股动脉穿刺行冠状动脉介入诊疗相比较,两组置管成功率差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,经桡动脉组术后并发症少,术后患者即可下床活动,术后疼痛轻于对照组,住院时间低于对照组.结论 经皮桡动脉穿刺行冠状动脉介入诊疗安全有效,疼痛小,更加舒适,术后不需卧床,并发症发生率低,可以作为冠状动脉介入治疗的一个较好的选择.

Comparative analysis between the transradial and transfemoral approach coronary intervention

Objective To evaluate the safety and success rates of transradial coronary intervention and to compare the advantages and disadvantages of coronary interventional procedures between the transradial and transfemoral approach in order to provide physician and patients a reasonable choice. Methods A total of 160 patients undergoing coronary interventional procedures were randomly divided into observer group (transradial group with 80 cases) and the control group ( transfemoral group with 80 cases). The success rate of catheterization, local pain during and after operation, complications, comfort after operation and hospitalization duration were compared between two groups. Results The success rate of catheterization was not different statistically between two approaches (P> 0.05 ). In transradial group, the complications, pains after operation and hospitalization time were better than in transfemoral group. Conclusions The transradial approach coronary intervention is safe, effective, with less pain after operation, with less influence on patients' comfort and no requirement of rest on the bed.