CAJ | 학술논문

目的：探讨经桡动脉(Transradia approach coronary intervention,TRA)与经股动脉(Transfemoral approach coronary inter-vention,TFA)两种途径行冠心病(Coronary heart disease,CHD)介入治疗的临床效果差异。方法选择2010-2014年曾在该院接受治疗的冠心病患者1000例,将患者随机分为数量相等的两组即观察组与对照组进,对照组中患者以经股动脉(TFA)冠状动脉介入方法进行治疗,观察组中患者以经桡动脉(TRA)冠状动脉介入方法进行治疗,观察两组患者所得到的临床效果。结果治疗结束后,观察组中患者的治疗成功率为96.0%,对照组中患者的治疗成功率为92.0%,两组患者之间差异显著》比较两组患者的穿刺时间﹑手术时间以及造影剂量：观察组中患者的穿刺时间及手术之间均短于对照组,观察组中患者的造影剂量少于对照组,两组患者之间差异较明显》观察组中患者的并发症发生率为4.0%,对照组中患者的并发症发生率为16.0%,两组患者直接差异较明显。结论经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉介入治疗是安全﹑有效的方法。桡动脉途径与股动脉途径冠状动脉介入冠心病均能够得到较好的效果,经桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入方法的穿刺时间﹑手术时间﹑术后并发症发生率均少于经股动脉冠状动脉介入方法,有利于患者尽快康复,临床上可优先选择经桡动脉途径行冠状动脉介入治疗。
목적：탐토경뇨동맥(Transradia approach coronary intervention,TRA)여경고동맥(Transfemoral approach coronary inter-vention,TFA)량충도경행관심병(Coronary heart disease,CHD)개입치료적림상효과차이。방법선택2010-2014년증재해원접수치료적관심병환자1000례,장환자수궤분위수량상등적량조즉관찰조여대조조진,대조조중환자이경고동맥(TFA)관상동맥개입방법진행치료,관찰조중환자이경뇨동맥(TRA)관상동맥개입방법진행치료,관찰량조환자소득도적림상효과。결과치료결속후,관찰조중환자적치료성공솔위96.0%,대조조중환자적치료성공솔위92.0%,량조환자지간차이현저》비교량조환자적천자시간﹑수술시간이급조영제량：관찰조중환자적천자시간급수술지간균단우대조조,관찰조중환자적조영제량소우대조조,량조환자지간차이교명현》관찰조중환자적병발증발생솔위4.0%,대조조중환자적병발증발생솔위16.0%,량조환자직접차이교명현。결론경뇨동맥도경행관상동맥개입치료시안전﹑유효적방법。뇨동맥도경여고동맥도경관상동맥개입관심병균능구득도교호적효과,경뇨동맥도경관상동맥개입방법적천자시간﹑수술시간﹑술후병발증발생솔균소우경고동맥관상동맥개입방법,유리우환자진쾌강복,림상상가우선선택경뇨동맥도경행관상동맥개입치료。
Objective To study the difference in clinical effect between transradial artery (TRA) percutaneous coronary intervention and transfemoral artery(TFA) percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD). Methods 1000 cases with CHD treated in our hospital from 2010 to 2014 were selected and randomly and equally divided into the observation group and the control group. Patients in the control group were treated by transfemoral artery (TFA) percutaneous coronary inter-vention; and patients in the observation group were treated with transradial artery (TRA) percutaneous coronary intervention. The clinical effects were compared between the two groups. Results After the treatment, the treatment success rate was 96.0% in the observation group and 92.0% in the control group, there was significant difference between two groups of patients; Comparing the two groups of patients with puncture time, operation time and the amount of contrast agent used: The puncture time and surgical time of patients in the observation group were shorter than those in the control group, contrast agent dosage used in the observation group was less than that used in the control group, the difference between two groups of patients was obvious; The incidence of complications of patients in the observation group was 4.0%, and that in the control group was 16.0%, the direct difference be-tween the two groups of patients was significant. Conclusion Transradial artery percutaneous coronary intervention is safe and ef-fective. Both transradial artery percutaneous coronary intervention and transfemoral artery percutaneous coronary intervention can achieve good results, but the puncture time, operation time and the incidence of postoperative complications of the former are less than those of the latter, which is conducive to the early rehabilitation of the patients, so transradial artery percutaneous coronary intervention can be a priority selection in clinical practice.