CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较经股动脉和桡动脉途径行冠脉介入诊疗术的可行性和安全性。方法选择2009年6月～2013年1月我院收治的150例行冠脉造影和介入治疗的患者，分别经股动脉或经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉造影（CAG）和冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）。观察比较两组患者第一次穿刺成功率、术后并发症和不良情况。结果经桡动脉途径行冠脉冠脉介入诊疗术的患者在术后下床时间、穿刺部位及血管及并发症、心理状态及发生不良情况明显优于经股动脉途径，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论与股动脉途径比较，经桡动脉途径行冠脉冠脉介入诊疗术患者术后恢复快，并发症少，住院时间短，手术依从性好，安全性高，值得临床推广使用。
목적：비교경고동맥화뇨동맥도경행관맥개입진료술적가행성화안전성。방법선택2009년6월～2013년1월아원수치적150례행관맥조영화개입치료적환자，분별경고동맥혹경뇨동맥도경행관상동맥조영（CAG）화관상동맥개입치료（PCI）。관찰비교량조환자제일차천자성공솔、술후병발증화불량정황。결과경뇨동맥도경행관맥관맥개입진료술적환자재술후하상시간、천자부위급혈관급병발증、심리상태급발생불량정황명현우우경고동맥도경，차이유통계학의의（P＜0.05）。결론여고동맥도경비교，경뇨동맥도경행관맥관맥개입진료술환자술후회복쾌，병발증소，주원시간단，수술의종성호，안전성고，치득림상추엄사용。
Objective To compare the feasibility and safety of the transfemoral intervention(TFI) and coronary intervention treatment through radial artery(CIRA). Methods 150 cases of coronary angiography(CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) patients who were admitted into our hospital from Jun. 2009 to Jan. 2013 were selected and treated with TFI and CIRA respectively. The first time success rate of puncture, postoperative complications and adverse situation of two groups were observed and compared. Results The time of getting out of bed, puncture sites, vascular complications, mental state and adverse situation of CIRA group were obviously superior to TFI group (P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with the TFI, the CIRA has the advantage of speedy recovery rate, less complications, short hospital stay, good operation compliance and high safety, it worth to be promoted in clinical.