论文部分内容阅读
目的比较经桡动脉与经股动脉途径行冠状动脉造影的优缺点。方法2007年3月至2008年8月疑诊冠心病拟行冠状动脉造影术的患者300例,随机分成经桡动脉组与经股动脉组。比较其穿刺成功率、X线曝光时间、手术操作时间、并发症的发生率和术后住院天数,并进行统计学处理。结果桡动脉组的穿刺成功率、平均X线曝光时间分别为98.44%和(5.33±3.94)min,经股动脉组为l00%和(4.76±3.59)min,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);手术操作时间分别为(21.58±4.03)min和(18.36±4.61)min,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组局部血肿发生率分别为0和2.78%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);经桡动脉组动脉痉挛发生率为2.60%,经股动脉组无动脉痉挛发生,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);经桡动脉组的术后住院天数为(3.18±1.37)d,<经股动脉组(5.76±3.02)d,(P<0.05)。结论经桡动脉径路行冠状动脉造影具有创伤小、易于压迫止血、无需卧床、并发症少和住院时间缩短的优点,可作为有适应证患者的首选。
Objective To compare the pros and cons of transradial and trans-femoral arterial coronary angiography. Methods From March 2007 to August 2008, 300 patients suspected of having coronary artery disease undergoing coronary angiography were randomly divided into transradial group and trans femoral artery group. The puncture success rate, X-ray exposure time, operation time, the incidence of complications and postoperative hospital stay were compared and statistically analyzed. Results The success rate of radiography, average X-ray exposure time were 98.44% and 5.33 ± 3.94 min, respectively, and those in the femoral artery group were 100% and 4.76 ± 3.59 min, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups P> 0.05). The operation time was (21.58 ± 4.03) min and (18.36 ± 4.61) min respectively, there was significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05). The incidence of local hematoma was 0 and 2.78% (P <0.05). The incidence of arterial spasm in the radial artery group was 2.60%, and there was no arterial spasm in the femoral artery group. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P <0.05) The postoperative hospital stay was (3.18 ± 1.37) days in the group and (5.76 ± 3.02) days in the femoral artery group (P <0.05). Conclusion Coronary angiography via radial artery has the advantages of less trauma, easier compression and hemostasis, less bed rest, fewer complications and shorter hospital stay, which may be the first choice of patients with indications.