论文部分内容阅读
目的 :比较经股动脉和经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉造影的优缺点。方法 :我院 2 0 0 0年 5月到 2 0 0 2年 10月住院、择期冠状动脉造影的病人 3 0 0例 ,按股动脉途径或桡动脉途径分为两组 ,比较其使用导管数、X光照射时间、手术操作时间、成功率、并发症发生率 ,并进行统计学处理。结果 :导管使用条数分别为 2 .3条和 1.3条 (P <0 .0 1) ;X光照射时间分别为 5 .3 2± 3 .5 8min和 4.64± 3 .2 5min(P <0 .0 5 >;手术操作时间分别为 2 1.6± 10 .5min和 15 .1± 10 .2min(P <0 .0 1)。成功率分别为 98.1%和 97.9% (P >0 .0 5 ) ;血管并发症分别为 13 .1%和 3 .5 7% (P <0 .0 1) (不包括疼痛和导尿等非血管并发症 )。结论 :经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉造影不需卧床 ,病人损伤小 ,止血方便 ,血管并发症少 ,节省费用 ,减少X光照射时间。安全、可行、便捷、经济。作者推荐使用桡动脉途径行冠状动脉造影。
Objective: To compare the pros and cons of coronary artery angiography via the femoral artery and transradial approach. Methods: From May 2000 to October 2002, our hospital was hospitalized. 300 patients undergoing selective coronary angiography were divided into two groups according to femoral artery approach or radial artery approach. The number of catheters , X-ray irradiation time, operation time, success rate, complication rate, and statistical analysis. Results: The number of catheters used was 2.3 and 1.3, respectively (P <0.01); the time of X-ray irradiation was 5.32 ± 3.58min and 4.64 ± 3.52min (P <0 .0 5> .The operative time was respectively (2) 1.6 ± 10. 5min and 15 .1 ± 10. 2min (P 0 01) .The success rates were 98.1% and 97.9% (P> 0.05) ; Vascular complications were 13.1% and 3.57% respectively (P <0.01) (Excluding non-vascular complications such as pain and catheterization) .Conclusion: Transcatheter arterial radial coronary angiography is not required Bedridden patients with small damage, convenient hemostasis, fewer vascular complications, save costs and reduce the X-ray irradiation time. Safe, feasible, convenient and economical. The authors recommend the use of radial artery coronary angiography.