CAJ | 학술논문

目的通过对冠心病患者施行经桡动脉和股动脉穿刺行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的舒适度和满意度的比较,选择一种患者更舒适、更易接受的路径.方法将心内科行PCI患者88例,分为经桡动脉途径组(A组)52例和经股动脉途径组(B组)36例,对两组患者进行生理、心理舒适度和满意度的调查,结合两组出现的并发症和住院费用进行分析.结果 A组患者舒适度和满意度显著高于B组,两组差异有统计学意义.结论桡动脉比股动脉穿刺行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者并发症的发生率低,卧床及住院时间短、住院费用少,使患者更舒适、安全,患者更易接受,值得临床推广应用.
목적 통과대관심병환자시행경뇨동맥화고동맥천자행경피관상동맥개입치료(PCI)적서괄도화만의도적비교,선택일충환자경서괄、경역접수적로경.방법 장심내과행PCI환자88례,분위경뇨동맥도경조(A조)52례화경고동맥도경조(B조)36례,대량조환자진행생리、심리서괄도화만의도적조사,결합량조출현적병발증화주원비용진행분석.결과 A조환자서괄도화만의도현저고우B조,량조차이유통계학의의.결론 뇨동맥비고동맥천자행경피관상동맥개입치료환자병발증적발생솔저,와상급주원시간단、주원비용소,사환자경서괄、안전,환자경역접수,치득림상추엄응용.
Objective To investigate the coronary heart disease patients' comfort and satisfaction who were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention by puncturing radial artery or femoral artery,choose one path which patients felt more comfortable and easier to accept.Methods Totaled of 88 patients with PCI were divided into two groups.The patients in A group (52 cases) were treated with radial artery pathway,and the patients in B group (36 cases) were treated with radial femoral pathway.The physiological,psychological comfort and satisfaction of two groups were compared.Results Compared with group B,comfort and satisfaction of A group was significantly higher (P ＜ 0.01),the difference was significant.Conclusions Compared with PCI by puncturing femoral artery,the probability of complications by puncturing radial artery was lower,the time of laying in the bed and hospitalization was shorter,and hospitalization costs was less,this path made patients more comfortable and safer,patients is easier to accept it,so it is worth to extend in clinic.