【摘要】 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。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the advantage and disadvantage of transradial approach for coronary angiography as compared to transfemoral approach. Methods Three hundreds patients were included and randomly underwent transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography from March, 2007 to August, 2008. The success rates of transartery puncture, X-ray exposure time, operation time, vessel complications and days in hospital were compared retrospectively between two groups. Results The success rates of transartery puncture and X-ray exposure time were 98.44% vs 100% and (5.33 ±3.94)min vs (4.76±3.59) min, respectively, while no significant difference was found between two groups (p>0.05)The average operation time for coronary angiography was signifi cantly different between two groups [(21.58±4.03)min vs (18.36±4.61)min,p>0.05). The incidence of local hematoma was signifi cantly lower in radial group than in femoral group(0 vs.2.78%, p>0.05). The incidence of artery spasm was signif icantly higher in radial groupthan in femoral group (2.6% vs.0%,p>0.05). The days in hospital was less in radial than in femoral group [(3.18±1.37)d vs. (5.76±3.02)d, p>0.05)Conclusion The transradial approach for coronary angiography has advantages such as less injury, convenient for hemostasis, less peripheral vessel complications, no need to keep in bed, and less days in hospital. Transradial approach can be the f irst choice for patients with indications.更多还原