经皮桡动脉穿刺与股动脉穿刺行冠脉介入治疗的临床观察分析

目的观察并比较经桡动脉与股动脉穿刺行冠脉介入治疗的优缺点，探讨经桡动脉途径行冠脉介入诊疗的可行性和安全性。方法随机选择行冠脉介入手术的患者200例，其中观察组（经桡动脉穿刺组）100例，对照组（经股动脉穿刺组）100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、手术成功率及住院时间。结果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（P〈0．01），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（P〈0．01）。桡动脉组PCI成功率94％，与股动脉组（97％）相比差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论经皮桡动脉穿刺行冠脉介入诊疗安全有效，疼痛轻，更加舒适，术后不需卧床，并发症发生率低，可以作为冠脉介入诊疗的一个较好的选择。

The comparative analysis between the transradial and transfemoral approach of coronary intervention

Objective To compare the advantages and disadvantages of coronary interventional procedures between the transradial and transfemoral approach and to evaluate the feasibility, safety and success rates of transradial eononary intervention. Methods 200 patients undergoing coronary interventional procedures were randomly divided into observer Group （transradial group 100 cases） and the control group （transfemoral group 100 eases）. We compared the success rate of catheterization, local pain during and after operation, complication and comfort after operation and hospitalization duration. Results The success rate of catheterization was not different statistically between two approaches（P〉0.05）. The complication rate was lower （P〈0.01） and pain after operation less （P〈0.01） with shorter hospitalization time （P〈0.01） in transradial group in addition to no requirement of rest on the bed. The total success rate of PCI was 94% in trm~radial group compared with 97% in transfemoral group （P〉 0.05）. Conclusion The transradial approach coronary intervention is safe and effective with less pain after operation and less influence on patients＇ comfort and no requirement of rest on the bed.