经桡动脉穿刺冠状动脉复杂病变的介入治疗

目的　探讨复杂冠状动脉病变经桡动脉穿刺途径行介入治疗的成功率和并发症。方法　 184例复杂冠状动脉病变的冠心病心绞痛患者中 ,经桡动脉穿刺组 4 6例 ,对照组为经股动脉穿刺者 138例 ,观察两组手术成功率、术后并发症等情况。结果　经桡动脉组手术成功率为 92 .2 % ,与经股动脉组 (94 .9% )相比无明显差异 (P>0 .0 5 )。但术后与穿刺有关的并发症发生率 ,经桡动脉组明显少于经股动脉组 (10 .8% vs 2 8.3% ,P<0 .0 5 ) ;术后卧床时间也明显短于经股动脉穿刺组 (P<0 .0 1)。而经桡动脉组从穿刺开始至指引导管放置成功所需的时间长于经股动脉组(P<0 .0 5 )。结论　经选择的冠状动脉复杂病变经桡动脉途径介入治疗具有较高的成功率。经桡动脉途径术后与穿刺有关的并发症发生率低。     

经桡动脉途径介入治疗冠状动脉分叉病变的临床研究

目的:本研究通过对比桡、股动脉途径经皮冠状动脉(冠脉)介入治疗(PCI)冠脉分叉病变的成功率、手术即刻效果及患者的术后近、中期预后情况,探讨经桡动脉处理冠脉分叉病变的可行性和安全性.方法:研究共入选160例在我医院接受PCI的冠脉分叉病变患者,根据PCI的入路不同分为经桡动脉途径介入治疗组(桡动脉组)和经股动脉介入治疗组(股动脉组),对比两组患者接受PCI治疗的成功率、造影剂用量、手术时间以及并发症的发生率,并观察两组患者术后6个月时发生严重心脏不良事件(包括死亡、心肌梗死和靶病变血运重建等)和支架血栓的情况,同时在术后6个月时通过冠脉造影随访,比较两组患者支架再狭窄的发生率.结果:桡动脉组68例中仅1例患者因术中发生桡动脉痉挛而改为股动脉途径,最终有67例患者成功接受桡动脉治疗,桡动脉组的PCI成功率为98.5%.股动脉组中92例患者全部成功接受股动脉治疗.两组患者除性别、血脂方面,在其他临床特征上差异无统计学意义;在冠脉病变特征方面两组差异无统计学意义.PCI术中,桡动脉组83.6%患者选用的是6 F大腔导引导管(0.071英寸),股动脉组73.9%患者选用7 F导引导管,两组患者中单支架术处理的病变比例基本相近;在双支架处理的病变中,桡动脉组处理病变使用Balloon Crush技术多于股动脉组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),而在股动脉组中选择标准Crush技术处理病变则多于桡动脉组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).两组患者完成最终球囊对吻扩张的成功率差异无统计学意义(83.6%vs.79.3%).桡动脉组术后1例患者出现血管并发症,股动脉组患者中有6例患者出现了血管并发症.两组患者在术后6个月严重心脏不良事件的发生率差异无统计学意义(13.4%vs.11.9%),两组患者中均有1例患者出现支架血栓事件.术后6个月时冠脉造影随访:两组患者的主、边支再狭窄率无统计学意义.结论:相比于股动脉途径,桡动脉途径PCI分叉病变具有相似的成功率和临床效果,桡动脉途径PCI分叉病变具有良好的可行性和安全性.     

基层医院开展经桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗的可行性研究

目的探讨经桡动脉和股动脉行冠状动脉介入治疗的优缺点,及在基层医院开展经桡动脉介入治疗的可行性。方法将112例住院的冠心病患者随机分为经桡动脉介入治疗组58例,经股动脉介入治疗组54例。观察两组手术成功率、住院天数、球囊及特殊导管使用率、手术操作时间和并发症的发生率。结果经桡动脉组与经股动脉组成功率无显著差异,而局部血管并发症少(P<0.05),住院天数明显缩短(P<0.01),但经桡动脉组球囊使用率高(P<0.05),特殊导管使用率也较经股动脉组高(P<0.01),手术耗时长(P<0.01),动脉痉挛发生率也高于经股动脉组但无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉介入治疗术患者痛苦少、血管并发症少,且手术成功率高,适合在基层医院开展。但在开展经桡动脉介入治疗前,应积累大量的经股动脉冠状动脉介入治疗术和经桡动脉冠脉造影术的实践经验。     

经桡动脉冠状动脉腔内支架术治疗冠状动脉复杂病变

目的:比较经桡动脉与股动脉途径经皮冠状动脉介入治疗冠状动脉复杂病变时间、治疗成功率和并发症。方法:回顾性对照分析近8个月来100例冠状动脉复杂病变介入治疗经桡动脉（A组50例）,股动脉（B组50例）成功率及并发症。结果:两组患者手术成功率相似（94%vs90%,P>0.05）;经皮冠状动脉介入治疗总时间两组间差异无显著性（62±14与62±10min,P>0.05）。但A组术后并发症显著低于B组。结论:经桡动脉途径与股动脉途径介入治疗冠状动脉复杂病变成功率相似,但前者术后并发症少。     

70岁以上老年患者急诊经桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗的临床疗效

目的:探讨70岁以上老年冠心病患者急诊经桡动脉穿刺行冠状动脉动脉介入治疗(PCI)的可行性和安全性。方法:97例冠心病患者男性66例,女性31例,平均年龄(76.44±6.20)岁。经桡动脉穿刺行冠状动脉动脉介入治疗。结果:93例患者均取得穿刺和介入治疗成功。1例桡动脉穿刺失败改行股动脉穿刺,3例患者桡动脉穿刺成功但头臂干迂曲、升主动脉扩张,在造影后改行股动脉途径经皮腔内冠状动脉动脉介入术(PCI)成功。扩张病变血管包括右冠状动脉32支,前降支52支,回旋支13支。97例患者靶血管植入支架共221个。21例患者术中须更换导引导管。术后股动脉穿刺局部较大血肿2例,桡动脉闭塞2例,前臂皮下淤血2例     

经桡动脉及股动脉途径急诊介入治疗STEMI的对照研究

目的探讨经桡动脉急诊经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗ST段抬高急性心肌梗死(STEMI)的临床疗效及可行性。方法STEMI行急诊PCI患者225例,随机分为桡动脉组123例,股动脉组102例。分析两组患者介入治疗的成功率、疗效、手术时间和术后并发症的发生率。结果两组患者在心肌梗死部位、血管病变位置、严重程度等方面,差异均无统计学意义。股动脉组PCI成功率为92.3%,桡动脉组为94.3%,两组之间无统计学差异(P0.05)。桡动脉组术后并发症发生率(6.5%)明显低于股动脉组(16.7%,P0.05)。结论经桡动脉途径行急诊PCI治疗STEMI与经股动脉途径PCI成功率相似,而术后并发症少,值得临床推广。     

经桡动脉介入治疗冠状动脉慢性完全闭塞病变效果观察

目的研究经桡动脉介入治疗冠状动脉慢性完全闭塞病变(CTO)的疗效。 方法选取郑州大学第二附属医院2014年3月至2016年8月收治的66例CTO患者作为研究对象,均经桡动脉行经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗,分析PCI成功率、双侧造影有效率、微导管使用有效率、并发症发生情况及手术前后左心室射血分数(LVEF)。 结果经桡动脉行PCI治疗,PCI成功率为72.73%(48/66);使用微导管成功率较未使用者高,双侧造影成功率较非双侧造影高(P<0.05);经桡动脉行PCI治疗术后3、6、12个月LVEF呈逐渐上升趋势,较术前升高(P<0.05)。并发症发生率为6.06%(4/66)。 结论对CTO患者采取经桡动脉PCI治疗成功率高,术中采用微导管及双侧造影可明显提高成功率,还可有效改善心功能,且并发症少,值得临床推广。     

经桡动脉途径介入治疗老年患者冠状动脉分叉病变

目的通过对比桡动脉、股动脉途径PCI治疗老年患者冠状动脉分叉病变的成功率、手术即刻效果及患者的术后近中期预后情况,探讨经桡动脉(TRI)途径处理老年患者冠状动脉分叉病变的可行性和安全性。方法研究共入选135例接受PCI治疗的老年冠状动脉分叉病变患者,根据初始选择的介入途径分为TRI组(n=64)和经股动脉(TFI)组(n=71),对比两组患者接受PCI治疗的成功率、造影剂用量、手术时间、并发症的发生率及再狭窄的发生率。结果TRI组64例中63例成功使用经桡动脉动脉,1例由于桡动脉严重痉挛并入股动脉组。PCI成功率TRI组为98.4%,TFI组为100%。PCI术中,TRI组84.1%的患者选用的是6F导引导管,而TFI组76.4%患者选用的是7F导引导管。术后TRI组仅1例患者出现血管并发症,而TFI组患者中有5例患者出现了血管并发症。TRI组和TFI组患者在PCI术后9个月时严重心脏不良事件的发生率(14.3%比15.3%)、支架血栓事件(1/6比1/71)及随访期造影提示主、边支界定再狭窄率(10.9%比10.0%,17.4%比22.0%)差异无统计学意义。结论经桡动脉途径PCI治疗老年患者分叉病变具有良好的可行性和安全性,有利于降低血管并发症的发生率。     

老年女性患者经桡动脉和股动脉途径行冠状动脉介入治疗的对比分析

目的评价老年女性患者经桡动脉和股动脉途径行PCI的安全性和临床效果。方法选择行PCI、年龄≥75岁的老年女性患者332例,按手术入径方式分为桡动脉组184例和股动脉组148例,回顾性分析患者的临床资料。冠状动脉造影检查显示,冠状动脉狭窄≥75%者行冠状动脉支架置入术。比较桡动脉和股动脉途径介入治疗临床疗效。结果 332例患者中有96例接受PCI,桡动脉组和股动脉组患者3支病变比率分别为39.7%和47.4%,分叉病变比率分别为60.3%和52.6%。与桡动脉组比较,股动脉组患者手术时间长,外周血管损伤明显增多(P0.05),术后观察时间及卧床时间明显延长,假性动脉瘤、下肢静脉血栓例数明显增多,穿刺动脉闭塞明显减少(P0.05)。结论老年女性患者自身病情复杂,选择桡动脉途径行PCI可以减少局部血管并发症,近期治疗风险小,病死率低,可取得较理想疗效。     

80岁以上老年患者经桡动脉和股动脉途径行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的对比研究

目的:评价80岁以上老年患者经桡动脉途径行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的安全性和临床疗效.方法:2003-05至2007-05进行PCI 80岁以上的高龄患者268例,男性176例,年龄80～97岁;经股动脉途径PCI组156例(股动脉组),经桡动脉途径PCI组112例(桡动脉组).对比两组的临床特点、PCI特点、住院期间主要的不良心脏事件(MACE,包括心脏性死亡、非致死性心肌梗死和靶病变再次重建率).结果:桡动脉组与股动脉组相比,PCI的成功率相似,均在95%以上;桡动脉组需要更改途径的比率显著增高(P<0.05);冠状动脉导管插入时间(P<0.01)、X线曝光时间(P<0.05)均显著延长;造影剂用量有增多趋势(P>0.05),但两组差异未达统计学意义;术后卧床时间显著缩短(P<0.01),所有原因的穿刺部位血管并发症显著降低(P<0.01),其中,局部出血发生率(P<0.01)和局部血肿发生率(P<0.01)均显著减低.经多因素回归分析显示,桡动脉途径(OR=0.25,CI=0.09～0.75)是穿刺部位血管并发症独立的阴性预测因素.结论:80岁以上高龄患者的PCI,桡动脉途径可以降低穿刺血管局部并发症,与股动脉途径相比具有同样的临床效果和成功率,但是,穿刺失败率高,穿刺时间和曝光时间较长.     

急诊经桡动脉与股动脉入路介入治疗ST段抬高急性心肌梗死对比研究

目的观察经桡动脉入路行急诊ST段抬高急性心肌梗死直接经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗的有效性和安全性。方法选择沈阳军区总医院2005年1月至2006年10月连续607例ST段抬高性急性心肌梗死(STEMI)住院患者,分别接受经桡动脉入路(273例)或经股动脉入路(334例)途径行PCI治疗,观察两组手术成功率和并发症发生率。结果两组患者PCI成功率差异无统计学意义(97.07%对95.81%,P>0.05)。经桡动脉入路组局部血肿、假性动脉瘤、迷走反射发生率显著低于经股动脉入路组。结论行PCI治疗的STEMI患者经桡动脉入路途径是安全、有效和可行的方法,与经股动脉比较,经桡动脉途径可减少并发症的发生。     

经桡动脉和股动脉途径行冠状动脉介入治疗的对比分析

目的对经桡动脉和股动脉途径行PCI患者的临床资料进行对比分析。方法选择行PCI的患者1011例,分为桡动脉组(355例)和股动脉组(656例),分析比较2组的手术成功率和手术并发症。结果桡动脉组和股动脉组患者手术成功率差异无统计学意义(97.7% vs 99.2%,P0.05)。2组患者1、2和3支病变行PCI时,手术和透视时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。与股动脉组比较,桡动脉组患者复杂病变和慢性闭塞病变行PCI时,手术和透视时间明显延长,穿刺局部血肿明显降低(P0.05)。结论经桡动脉途径和股动脉途径行PCI疗效相似,但经桡动脉途径并发症少,复杂病变和慢性闭塞病变行PCI时选择经股动脉途径优于桡动脉途径。     

高龄患者经桡动脉和股动脉行冠状动脉造影和支架植入术的效果分析

目的对比高龄患者中经桡动脉和股动脉途径行冠状动脉造影和支架植入术的安全性、可行性及疗效。方法216例接受介入诊疗的75岁以上冠心病心绞痛病人,随机分为桡动脉组及股动脉组,各108例。比较两组在冠脉造影及支架植入术中的动脉穿刺及手术操作时间、X线曝光时间、造影剂用量、支架植入数量、支架植入成功率、外周血管并发症发生率,以及支架植入术中两组特殊导管使用率,双钢丝及PTCA球囊使用率等的差异。结果桡动脉组及股动脉组的血管穿刺时间、穿刺成功率、造影成功率、支架成功率均无显著差异(P>0.05),术后不适反应发生率桡动脉组显著低于股动脉组;单个支架操作时间、特殊导管使用率、双钢丝及PTCA球囊使用率,桡动脉组均较股动脉组高,差异具有显著性(P<0.01),局部血管并发症率及术后患者舒适度、缩短住院时间,桡动脉组明显优于股动脉组,差异具有显著性(P<0.01)。结论高龄患者经桡动脉与股动脉途径介入诊疗具同样的安全性,可行性及疗效。     

经桡动脉和股动脉途径行冠状动脉介入术的对比研究

目的 研究比较经桡动脉和股动脉两种途径行冠状动脉造影 (coronary angiography,CAG) 和介入治疗(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)的优缺点.方法 择期行CAG和PCI病人804例,按途径分为桡动脉组294例 (包括1例股动脉途径CAG失败而改为桡动脉途径),股动脉组530例(包括19例桡动脉途径CAG失败而改为股动脉途径).比较两组CAG和PCI的手术操作成功率和并发症.结果 CAG手术成功率:桡动脉组92.9%,股动脉组99.4%,差异有统计学意义.PCI手术成功率:桡动脉组92.6%,股动脉组96.5%,差异无统计学意义.但桡动脉组有6例病人改从股动脉途径完成PCI.外周血管并发症:桡动脉组2.7%,股动脉8.7%,差异有统计学意义.结论 桡动脉途径与传统的股动脉途径相比能减少外周血管并发症,但手术操作的难度有所增加.     

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary procedures

Selective coronary angiography was originally performed through open brachial arteriotomy. Thereafter, the percutaneous Seldinger technique and the use of preformed Judkins-type catheters popularized the femoral approach. More recently, after the first report of successful coronary angiography by the transradial approach in 1989, the radial artery has been increasingly used as an alternative access site. The main advantage offered by the transradial approach is represented by the very low (< 1%) incidence of relevant vascular access site complications, which on the contrary occur in about 3% to 7% of patients undergoing procedures through the femoral route. The main disadvantage is a higher incidence of procedural failure that leads to a crossover to the femoral route. In this review, we examine the available evidence on transradial and transfemoral approach advantages, disadvantages, and complications in coronary angiography and intervention. Their use in the acute myocardial infarction setting and other situations is described. Vascular closure device usefulness is also considered.     

Radial vs. femoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians

BackgroundThe transradial approach is associated with fewer bleeding complications during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) but is more technically challenging and associated with prolonged times during intervention. The aim of this study is to retrospectively compare the results of radial vs. femoral approach in patients ≥80 years old undergoing primary or rescue PCI.MethodsBetween January 2002 and December 2007, 354 interventions were performed in our institution with the indication of primary or rescue PCI in patients over 80 years old, without history of previous bypass operation or cardiogenic shock on presentation. Thirteen patients required a change of the approach during the procedure and were not enrolled in the final analysis. Forty (12%) interventions were performed through the transradial approach and 301 (88%) through the femoral approach. In-hospital major adverse cerebral and cardiac events and access site bleeding complications as well as 30- and 365-day mortality, procedural times, and contrast volume were evaluated.ResultsThe two groups had similar clinical characteristics, with the exception of serum creatinine that was higher in the transfemoral approach group. There were no differences in procedural times and clinical outcomes, although the transfemoral group had numerically more access site bleeding complications (12/301 vs. 0/40, P=.41). The transradial approach had a higher conversion rate compared with the transfemoral approach (18.3% vs. 1.3%, P<.001).ConclusionThe transradial approach is feasible and safe in the octogenarians undergoing primary and rescue PCI, but it is associated with a high conversion rate to another approach.     

经桡动脉与经股动脉两种途径冠心病介入治疗的对比研究

目的 :比较经桡动脉途径和股动脉途径冠心病介入的手术方法、结果和并发症。方法 :10 3 3例冠心病住院患者分别接受经桡动脉 （ A）组 （ n=419）或经股动脉 （ F）组 （ n=614 ）途径的冠心病介入 （ PCI）治疗 ,观察两组手术成功率和并发症发生率。结果 :两组患者 PCI成功率没有显著性差异。A组局部血肿、不适反应等发生率显著低于 F组 ,假性动脉瘤、动静脉瘘、局部感染及表皮坏死等并发症在 A组未出现 ,F组分别发生 11,4,6,7例 ,但两组间无显著性差异。两组均未出现远端肢体缺血、神经损伤等。结论 :实施 PCI术的两种途径都是安全、有效和可行的方法 ,与经股动脉比较 ,经桡动脉途径可减少并发症的发生     

Radial versus femoral approach for same‐day inter‐facility transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention

Background

The use of radial approach for coronary angiography, followed by same‐day inter‐facility transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not yet been evaluated.

Objectives

We sought to assess the safety and feasibility of using the transradial as compared to the transfemoral approach in patients undergoing diagnostic angiogram with same‐day transfer to a PCI facility.

Methods

Patients that underwent diagnostic coronary angiography between January 2011 and June 2017 in a referring facility, and were transferred for same‐day PCI were included. Patients’ demographics, as well as procedural data and in‐hospital outcome, were collected.

Results

Three hundred fifty‐two participants were included. Of these, 36 (10.2%) patients received transradial access. Patients in the transradial group were older (68 ± 10 vs 62 ± 12 years, P = 0.007), and received a significantly higher total dose of heparin including both, diagnostic and PCI procedures (5935 ± 1865 vs 10029 ± 2771 units, P < 0.001). None of the transradial patients experienced bleeding or access‐related complications. In the transfemoral group, 9 (3%) vascular‐access complications were recorded. Contrast volume was lower for transradial patients (177 ± 47 vs 216 ± 75 mL, P < 0.001). A higher proportion of outpatients were discharged from the PCI‐center the same day after transradial procedures (53% vs 1.3%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Transradial access for inter‐facility transfer for PCI after diagnostic angiogram appears safe and feasible, without increasing the risk for ischemic hand complications. Transradial access was associated with fewer bleeding and vascular access‐site complications, and with a higher likelihood for a same‐day discharge home in outpatients.     

冠心病患者冠状动脉介入治疗两种路径的比较

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。