经桡动脉和经股动脉途径冠状动脉介入诊疗临床对照研究

目的比较经桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入诊疗（TRI）和经股动脉途径冠状动脉介入诊疗（TFI）的优劣。方法选择2007年5月～2009年8月行冠状动脉造影和（或）冠状动脉介入治疗患者382例，按照途径分为两组：桡动脉组（R组）217例，股动脉组（F组）165例，比较两组手术成功率、并发症发生率、手术操作时间。结果手术成功率：R组94．5％（205／217），F组96．9％（158／163），差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；穿刺部位并发症发生率：R组2．7％（6／217），F组11．5％（19／165）；CAG操作时间R组（16．7±7．5）min，G组（14．3±5．8）min。结论经桡动脉途径与经股动脉途径相比，手术成功率及操作时间相近，但局部并发症发生率低，患者痛苦小、创伤少、不需持续卧床而容易接受，值得推广。

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention by Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches:A Comparison Study

Objective To compare transradial with transfemoral approach in coronary arteriography and intervention treatment. Methods All 382 patients undergoing coronary arteriography or percutaneous coronary intervention were divided into two groups according to artery puncture approach：transradial group（Group R,217 cases）and transfemoral group（Group F, 165 cases）.The success rate,operation time and complications of operation were compared between two groups. Results There was no significant difference in the success rate of the transradial and transfemoral procedures（94.5%vs96.9%, P〉0.05）. There was no significant difference in the operation time （16.7 ± 7.Stain vs 14.3± 5.Smin） between two groups. The incidence rate of access site complication was significantly lower in Group R than that in Group F （2.7% vs 11.5%, P〈0.01 ）. Conclusion Transradial coronary arteriography or intervention treatment can be successfully performed with excellent safety and effectiveness. There are fewer complications by the transradial approach.