CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较1.8 m长及2.6 m长超滑泥鳅导丝在经桡动脉冠脉介入（TRI）诊疗中效果。方法入选我院行经桡动脉冠脉介入包括冠状动脉造影、冠脉PTCA及PCI术患者1081例；随机分为A、B两组， A组为应用1.8 m泥鳅导丝组，B组为应用2.6 m泥鳅导丝组。通过对比手术时间、X线曝光时间、并发症、急诊患者门球时间来评估两者优劣。结果 B组在手术持续时间及X线曝光时间短于A组，并发症少，尤其发生前臂血肿减少；急诊患者门球时间稍有缩短。结论2.6 m超滑泥鳅导丝在经桡动脉介入诊疗中优于1.8 m超滑泥鳅导丝。
목적：비교1.8 m장급2.6 m장초활니추도사재경뇨동맥관맥개입（TRI）진료중효과。방법입선아원행경뇨동맥관맥개입포괄관상동맥조영、관맥PTCA급PCI술환자1081례；수궤분위A、B량조， A조위응용1.8 m니추도사조，B조위응용2.6 m니추도사조。통과대비수술시간、X선폭광시간、병발증、급진환자문구시간래평고량자우렬。결과 B조재수술지속시간급X선폭광시간단우A조，병발증소，우기발생전비혈종감소；급진환자문구시간초유축단。결론2.6 m초활니추도사재경뇨동맥개입진료중우우1.8 m초활니추도사。
Objective To compare the 1.8 meters super smooth guide wire to 2.6 meters super smooth guide wire in TRI.Methods A total of 1 081 patients admitted in our hospital for transradial intervention included Coronary arteriongraphy, Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and Percutaneous coronary artery stent implanttation. It was randomly divided into AB group. A group used conventional 1.8 meters smooth guide wire, in group B, 2.6 meters of smooth guide wire. To assess the merits of both by comparing the Operation time. X-ray exposure time, Complications and Door-to-balloon time of emergency patients.Results B group in the operation time and X-ray exposure time shorter to A group, fewer complications, especially forearm hematoma decreased signiifcantly, emergency patients door-to-balloon time slightly shortened.Conclusion 2.6 meters super smooth guide wire is superior to 1.8 meters super smooth guide wire in TRI.