冠心病介入诊疗2种穿刺途径的效果研究

目的探讨冠状动脉介入诊疗经股动脉途径和经桡动脉途径2种方法的利弊,从而根据病人的具体情况选择更合适的途径.方法通过对150例冠心病病人经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉（冠脉）介入诊疗,与160例经股动脉途径者进行比较.结果经桡动脉途径者伤口出血、术后排便困难、术后主观不适发生率显著低于经股动脉穿刺者（P〈0.05）;靶血管闭塞、迷走反射与股动脉途径比较,差异无显著性意义（P〉0.05）.结论提示经桡动脉途径行冠脉介入诊疗手术安全,不良反应发生率低,可减轻病人痛苦,但桡动脉较股动脉细,穿刺较困难,目前股动脉途径仍为主要途径,暂时不会被桡动脉途径取代.

Comparative study of two puncture approaches used in percutaneous Conoary intervention therapy

Objective To explore the advantages and disadvantages of two puncture approach(femoral approach and radial approach) in(PCI) therapy.Methods 310 patients with suspected coronary heart disease are involved in this study.PCI therapy were performed in 150 of them(group 1) through femoral approach,and PCI therapy were performed through radial approach in the remaining 160 patients(group 2).Results The occurrence percentage of the following events,namely hemorrhage at the puncture site,difficulty for defecation after operation,and subjective discomfort in patients through radial approach,is significantly less than that in the patients through femoral approach(P<0.05).The comparison of the occurrence percentage of coronary occlusion and vasovagal reflex between the two groups did not show a significant difference.Conclusions PCI therapies though radial approach is a safe technique with a low occurrence of of the adverse effects,which can relief the patient's pains.However,the dimension of radial artery is smaller than that of femoral artery,which brings a difficulty to the performance of a puncture.Therefore,femoral approach is the main approach at present and it cannot be replaced by radial approach in the near future.