经桡动脉和股动脉两种不同路径行冠脉介入术的护理

目的：总结分析经桡动脉途径与经股动脉途径行冠状动脉介入术（PCI）的护理要点。方法：289例冠心病患者分别采用经桡动脉途径（150例）和经股动脉途经（139例）行冠脉造影及PCI术,比较两组患者术后并发症和主观不适等发生情况的差异及采取相应的护理措施。结果：两组患者在术后卧床时间、平均住院时间及皮下血肿、假性动脉瘤形成、迷走神经反射、排便困难、术后低血压和主观不适等并发症发生率方面比较有统计学差异（P〈0.01）。结论：两种途径行冠脉介入诊疗均是安全可行的,但经桡动脉途径的不良反应发生率低,且无需中断肝素抗凝、无需砂袋压迫、无需卧床、无体位限制,患者痛苦小,而且住院时间短;在术后观察护理工作量上及患者的接受程度和舒适度方面明显优于经股动脉路径。

Nursing of percutaneous coronary interventions:transradial versus transfemoral arterial access

Objective：To compare the transradial approach through the femoral artery approach with percutaneous coronary intervention（PCI）characteristics of care.Methods：289 cases of coronary heart disease patients were randomly divided into two groups according to intervention approach,transradial group of 150 cases,139 cases of femoral artery via group observed and compared two groups of patients with occlusion of blood vessels,subcutaneous hematoma,pseudoaneurysm,vagus nerve reflex,defecation difficulties,postoperative hypotension,renal impairment,subjective discomfort occurred in the situation and take appropriate care measures.Results：The two groups of patients after bed time,the average length of stay,subcutaneoushematoma,pseudoaneurysm,vagus nerve reflex,defecation difficulties,after the incidence of low blood pressure and subjective discomfort was significantly lower than the femoral artery puncture channel group,the difference was statistical significance（P0.01）.Conclusions：Two ways to coronary intervention treatment was safe and feasible,but the transradial approach a lower incidence of adverse reactions.In the postoperative care,patient acceptance,comfort and care and the workload on the path of the radial artery was superior to the femoral artery path.