CAJ | 학술논문

目的临床观察经桡动脉穿刺与股动脉穿刺两种穿刺路径行冠脉介入治疗的疗效。方法回顾性分析我院2010年1月～2012年12月需行冠脉造影或冠脉介入治疗的患者104例，其中行桡动脉穿刺患者54例，行股动脉穿刺患者50例，比较两组穿刺时间、穿刺后压迫时间、介入成功率、穿刺后血肿发生率。结果经桡动脉穿刺组穿刺点压迫时间（3.6±1.3）min、穿刺时间(4.1±1.4)min，均短于股动脉穿刺组的（15.5±3.6）min、(6.5±1.3)min，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；桡动脉组并发症发生率（5.6%）明显低于股动脉穿刺组（24%），差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05)；介入成功率两组比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论急性心肌梗死患者行桡动脉穿刺冠脉介入治疗，其介入成功率与股动脉穿刺冠脉介入治疗相当，穿刺点压迫时间短，压迫点血肿发生率低，且不影响患者活动，是值得选择的一种穿刺路径。
목적림상관찰경뇨동맥천자여고동맥천자량충천자로경행관맥개입치료적료효。방법회고성분석아원2010년1월～2012년12월수행관맥조영혹관맥개입치료적환자104례，기중행뇨동맥천자환자54례，행고동맥천자환자50례，비교량조천자시간、천자후압박시간、개입성공솔、천자후혈종발생솔。결과경뇨동맥천자조천자점압박시간（3.6±1.3）min、천자시간(4.1±1.4)min，균단우고동맥천자조적（15.5±3.6）min、(6.5±1.3)min，차이유통계학의의（P＜0.05）；뇨동맥조병발증발생솔（5.6%）명현저우고동맥천자조（24%），차이유통계학의의（P＜0.05)；개입성공솔량조비교차이무통계학의의（P＞0.05）。결론급성심기경사환자행뇨동맥천자관맥개입치료，기개입성공솔여고동맥천자관맥개입치료상당，천자점압박시간단，압박점혈종발생솔저，차불영향환자활동，시치득선택적일충천자로경。
Objective To observe the clinical effects of transradial artery puncture and transfemoral artery puncture for coronary artery invention treatment. Methods 104 patients requiring coronary angiogram or coronary intervention treatment in our hospital from January 2010 to December 2012 were analyzed retrospectively,of which 54 patients received transradial artery puncture and 50 patients received transfemoral artery puncture.The puncture time,post-puncture compression time,intervention success rates and hematoma occurrence rates of the two groups were compared. Results The compression time and puncture time of the transradial artery puncture group were (3.6±1.3)minutes and (4.1±1.4) minutes respectively,which were shorter than the (15.5±3.6)minutes and (6.5±1.3) minutes of the transfemoral artery puncture group, with statistically significance differences (P<0.05). The complication occurrence rate of the transradial artery puncture group was 5.6%,which was significantly lower than the 24% of the transfemoral artery puncture group,with statistically significance difference(P < 0.05).The two groups were not significantly different in the intervention success rate(P>0.05). Conclusion For patients with acute cardiac infarction, coronary intervention treatment through transradial artery puncture has a comparable intervention success rate with the coronary intervention treatment through transfemoral artery puncture, shorter puncture site compression time, lower hematoma occurrence rate and no influence on the patient's action and therefore it is a puncture path worthy selection.