经肱动脉行经皮冠状动脉介入术的临床研究

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。方法选自本院门诊及住院的接受经皮冠状动脉介入术的冠心病患者48例,肱动脉组、桡动脉组和股动脉组各16例,比较手术时间、平均住院时间、插入冠状动脉成功率、穿刺部位出血及血管损伤发生率、迷走反射发生率等指标。结果肱动脉组和桡动脉组在平均术后住院时间、穿刺部位出血及血管损伤发生率、迷走反射发生率方面较股动脉组明显减少;但插入冠状动脉成功率较股动脉组低,而差异无统计学意义;手术时间肱动脉组和桡动脉组较股动脉组长(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,且并发症更低,经济实用,更易为患者所接受。

Clinical study of percutaneous coronary intervention via brachial artery

Objectives To investigate the effect of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure by different pathway. Methods Forty-eight patients with coronary artery disease treated with PCI in our hospital were included in the study and were randomly arranged to 3 groups: group A was treated via brachial artery, group B via radial artery, and group C via femoral artery. The operation time, in-hospital time, successful rate of puncture, successful rate of PCI, local hemorrhage rate, vascular injury, and presence of vagal reflex were analyzed. Results The operation time, in-hospital time post operation, local hemorrhage rate, vascular injury, and presence of vagal reflex in the group A and B were significantly less than group C. Successful rate of puncture was lightly lower in the group C but had no statistical significance. Successful rate of PCI was similar in 3 groups. Conclusions PCI via brachial artery and radial artery were as safe as via femoral artery procedure, and were easier accepted by patients because of the less presence of complication and lower cost.