比较4F和6F造影导管经股动脉行冠状动脉造影

目的 比较使用4F及6F造影导管经股动脉径路行冠状动脉造影的可行性。方法 把疑诊冠心病病人409例分成两组,分别使用4F造影导管178例和6F造影导管231例行冠状动脉及左心室造影,对比两组病人手术成功率,术后止血压迫时间、开始活动时间、局部及全身并发症发生率等。结果 两组病例造影成功率及完成造影时间大致相同,4F组造影剂使用量、术后止血压迫时间、卧床时间、穿刺点伤口皮下血肿形成、皮下淤斑、迷走神经反射发生率均明显低于6F组（P＜0.01）。结论 与6F动脉鞘及造影导管比较,使用4F动脉鞘及造影导管经股动脉经路行冠状动脉造影具有方便、可靠、损伤小、并发症少,病人可早期活动、痛苦小、容易接受的优点,可作为诊断性造影、门诊造影和介入术后复查首选方法。

To compare 4F catheter with 6F catheter in coronary angiography by femoral artery approach

Objectives To compare 4F Catheter with 6F catheter in the diagnostic coronary angiography by femoral artery approach. Methods From June 2002 to Dec 2004,409 cases divided into two groups:4F group (n=178)and 6F group(n=231). Femoral artery approach coronary angiography was carried out in 409 patients.Early ambulation of the patients could permitted at two hours after operation, in 4F group. Results Femoral artery approach coronary angiography and ventriculography used 4F and 6F catheter were successful in 409 patients(100%), with low vascular complication rate after early ambulation. Conclusions Femoral artery approach with 4F catheter seems to be both feasible and safe for coronary angiography, with a very low risk of local complication and more comfort for patients.