国际医药卫生导报
國際醫藥衛生導報
국제의약위생도보
INTERNATIONAL MEDICINE & HEALTH GUIDANCE NEWS
2012年
11期
1567-1569
,共3页
杨友%黄裕立%胡允兆%吴焱贤%王航鹰
楊友%黃裕立%鬍允兆%吳焱賢%王航鷹
양우%황유립%호윤조%오염현%왕항응
急性心肌梗死%冠状动脉介入治疗%桡动脉%股动脉%基层医院
急性心肌梗死%冠狀動脈介入治療%橈動脈%股動脈%基層醫院
급성심기경사%관상동맥개입치료%뇨동맥%고동맥%기층의원
Acute myocardial infarction%Coronary intervention therapy%Radial artery%Femoral artery%Primary hospitals
目的 对比经桡动脉和经股动脉两种不同途径在急诊经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗中的优劣势,探讨经桡动脉途径行急诊冠脉介入治疗在基层医院的可行性.方法 将90例急性心肌梗死患者随机分为桡动脉组45例(经桡动脉介入治疗)和股动脉组45例(经股动脉介入治疗),均行急诊PCI,对比两组病人的门球时间(接诊到球囊开放的时间)、手术成功率、并发症发生率、X线曝光时间、住院天数.结果 两组病人在门球时间[( 92.0±6.1)min vs.(89.0±5.4) min]、手术成功率(93.3％ vs.95.6％)方面无显著差异(P＞0.05),但桡动脉组并发症发生率更低(4.5％ vs.13.0％,P＜0.05),住院天数也明显缩短[(6.3±1.5)dvs.( 8.6±2.1)d,P＜0.01],桡动脉组的X线曝光时间较股动脉组高但无显著差异(p＞0.05).结论 在急诊冠脉介入治疗中,经桡动脉途径行冠脉介入治疗手术成功率高,患者痛苦少、血管并发症少,适合在基层医院开展,但前提是必须先积累大量的经股动脉冠状动脉介入治疗术和经桡动脉冠脉造影术的实践经验.
目的 對比經橈動脈和經股動脈兩種不同途徑在急診經皮冠狀動脈介入(PCI)治療中的優劣勢,探討經橈動脈途徑行急診冠脈介入治療在基層醫院的可行性.方法 將90例急性心肌梗死患者隨機分為橈動脈組45例(經橈動脈介入治療)和股動脈組45例(經股動脈介入治療),均行急診PCI,對比兩組病人的門毬時間(接診到毬囊開放的時間)、手術成功率、併髮癥髮生率、X線曝光時間、住院天數.結果 兩組病人在門毬時間[( 92.0±6.1)min vs.(89.0±5.4) min]、手術成功率(93.3％ vs.95.6％)方麵無顯著差異(P＞0.05),但橈動脈組併髮癥髮生率更低(4.5％ vs.13.0％,P＜0.05),住院天數也明顯縮短[(6.3±1.5)dvs.( 8.6±2.1)d,P＜0.01],橈動脈組的X線曝光時間較股動脈組高但無顯著差異(p＞0.05).結論 在急診冠脈介入治療中,經橈動脈途徑行冠脈介入治療手術成功率高,患者痛苦少、血管併髮癥少,適閤在基層醫院開展,但前提是必鬚先積纍大量的經股動脈冠狀動脈介入治療術和經橈動脈冠脈造影術的實踐經驗.
목적 대비경뇨동맥화경고동맥량충불동도경재급진경피관상동맥개입(PCI)치료중적우열세,탐토경뇨동맥도경행급진관맥개입치료재기층의원적가행성.방법 장90례급성심기경사환자수궤분위뇨동맥조45례(경뇨동맥개입치료)화고동맥조45례(경고동맥개입치료),균행급진PCI,대비량조병인적문구시간(접진도구낭개방적시간)、수술성공솔、병발증발생솔、X선폭광시간、주원천수.결과 량조병인재문구시간[( 92.0±6.1)min vs.(89.0±5.4) min]、수술성공솔(93.3％ vs.95.6％)방면무현저차이(P＞0.05),단뇨동맥조병발증발생솔경저(4.5％ vs.13.0％,P＜0.05),주원천수야명현축단[(6.3±1.5)dvs.( 8.6±2.1)d,P＜0.01],뇨동맥조적X선폭광시간교고동맥조고단무현저차이(p＞0.05).결론 재급진관맥개입치료중,경뇨동맥도경행관맥개입치료수술성공솔고,환자통고소、혈관병발증소,괄합재기층의원개전,단전제시필수선적루대량적경고동맥관상동맥개입치료술화경뇨동맥관맥조영술적실천경험.
Objective To compare the advantages and disadvantages in urgent percutaneous coronary intervention ( PCI ) with transradial or transfemoral approach,and to explore the feasibility of urgent PCI with transradial approach in primary hospitals.Methods 90 patients with acute myocardial infarction who needed interventional therapy were divided into transradial approach group ( n =45 ) and transfemoral approach group ( n =45 ).Time to balloon opening after medical visit,success rate of the procedures,incidence rate of complications,duration of X-ray exposure,and length of hospital day were compared between the two groups.Results The success rate of the procedures,time to balloon opening after medical visit,and duration of X-ray exposure did not differ significantly between the two group ( P ＞ 0.05 for all comparisons ).Length of hospital day were shortened and rate of complications were lowered in the transradial procedure group ( P ＜ 0.01 and P ＜ 0.05 ).Conclusions Urgent percutaneous coronary intervention with transradial approach has a higher success rate and fewer complications,can relieve the pain level in patients,and is suitable to apply in primary hospital.But the prerequisite is accumulation of large amount of experience on transfemoral coronary intervention and transradial coronary angiography.
