经桡动脉途径介入治疗急性心肌梗死临床分析

目的 评价急性心肌梗死患者经皮桡动脉介入治疗(PCI)的安全性和有效性.方法 共入选91例急性心肌梗死患者,经桡动脉介入治疗组(TRD)59例,经股动脉介入治疗组(TFD)32例.观察穿刺成功率、手术成功率、手术时间、透视时间、造影剂用量及穿刺并发症.结果 两组穿刺成功率、手术成功率、手术时间、透视时间、造影剂用量差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05),TRI组穿刺并发症明显低于TFI组(P＜0.05).结论 急性心肌梗死行PCI时,经桡动脉途径同样安全、有效,手术结果相似而并发症明显减少.     

经桡动脉与经股动脉行急诊介入治疗AMI的疗效与安全性

目的比较经桡动脉与经股动脉行急诊冠脉介入（PCI）治疗急性心肌梗死（AMI）的安全性及疗效。方法将195例接受急诊PCI治疗的AMI患者分为经股动脉途径组105例、经桡动脉途径组90例,比较两组手术成功率、并发症发生率及6个月的随访结果。结果两组血管穿刺成功率、鞘管置人时间、穿刺至球囊扩张时间、手术成功率、6个月无主要心脏不良事件生存率比较,均无统计学差异（P〉0．05）;与股动脉组比较,桡动脉组手术操作时间长、血管并发症发生率低、住院时间短（P均〈0．05）。结论经桡动脉与经股动脉行急诊PCI的效果相同,但前者具有穿刺点血管并发症少、患者住院时间短等优点。     

经桡动脉急诊冠状动脉介入治疗的安全性与可行性

目的观察给急性心肌梗死(acute myocardial infarction,AMI)患者经桡动脉行急诊冠状动脉介入治疗(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)的安全性与可行性。方法选择2004年6月至2005年12月我院收治的289例临床诊断为AMI患者,发病均在12 h内。其中男性患者201例,女性患者88例,平均年龄(55.8±10.9)岁,分为经桡动脉介入(transradial coronary intervention,TRI)组142例与经股动脉介入(transfemoral coronary intervention,TFI)组147例。观察两组穿刺成功率、手术成功率、介入治疗时间、术后与穿刺相关并发症情况。结果TRI组142例患者,包括单支病变的患者82例,多支病变的患者60例,其中完全闭塞病变患者47例。TFI组147例患者,包括单支病变的患者85例,多支病变的患者62例,其中完全闭塞病变患者50例。两组病例基本特征比较差异无统计学意义。TRI组与TFI组手术穿刺成功率比较差异无统计学意义(98.6%比99.3%,P>0.05)。罪犯血管TIMI3级开通率,TRI组与TFI组比较差异无统计学意义(95.1%比93.9%,P>0.05)。从麻醉到第一次球囊扩张时间,TRI组为(29.1±6.2)min,TFI组为(27.5±7.0)min,P>0.05,从麻醉到指引导管撤出时间,TRI组为(47.3±16.0)min,TFI组为(43.0±17.1)min,P>0.05,两组比较差异无统计学意义。术后与穿刺相关的并发症,TRI组出现严重桡动脉痉挛3例,局部血肿2例。TFI组出现局部血肿7例,迷走反射12例,假性动脉瘤2例,排尿困难10例,腰痛5例。结论经桡动脉与经股动脉PCI治疗AMI同样具有较高的成功率,而术后与穿刺血管及其他因素相关的并发症的发生率,经桡动脉组却明显少于经股动脉组。因此桡动脉可作为给AMI患者行急诊PCI的常规途径之一。     

经桡动脉及股动脉途径急诊介入治疗STEMI的对照研究

目的探讨经桡动脉急诊经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗ST段抬高急性心肌梗死(STEMI)的临床疗效及可行性。方法STEMI行急诊PCI患者225例,随机分为桡动脉组123例,股动脉组102例。分析两组患者介入治疗的成功率、疗效、手术时间和术后并发症的发生率。结果两组患者在心肌梗死部位、血管病变位置、严重程度等方面,差异均无统计学意义。股动脉组PCI成功率为92.3%,桡动脉组为94.3%,两组之间无统计学差异(P0.05)。桡动脉组术后并发症发生率(6.5%)明显低于股动脉组(16.7%,P0.05)。结论经桡动脉途径行急诊PCI治疗STEMI与经股动脉途径PCI成功率相似,而术后并发症少,值得临床推广。     

经桡动脉介入治疗急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死的安全性与有效性

目的:评价急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者经桡动脉冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的安全性和有效性.方法:回顾性分析92例行PCI治疗的急性STEMI患者,经桡动脉介入治疗组(TRI组,60例)和经股动脉介入治疗组(TFI组,32例).对比观察:①穿刺成功率与PCI成功率.②手术时间及透视时间.③术中置入支架数、造影剂用量以及指引导管的选择.④穿刺相关并发症.⑤住院天数及住院期间主要心血管事件.结果:2组穿刺成功率、手术成功率、手术操作时间、透视时间、置入支架数、造影剂用量及住院天数差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).TRI组穿刺并发症明显低于TFI组 (8.3%∶28.1%,P<0.05).经桡动脉途径往往需要支撑力较好、具有特殊造型的指引导管.结论:急性STEMI患者行PCI时,经桡动脉途径同样安全、有效,手术结果相似而出血并发症明显减少.     

经皮桡动脉冠脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死的临床研究

目的 探讨经皮桡动脉入路冠脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死的临床应用及预后随访.方法 收集2008年7月至2014年5月苏州市立医院确诊的急性心肌梗死患者179例,其中经皮桡动脉入路介入治疗107例（TRI组）,经皮股动脉入路介入治疗72例（TFI组）.观察两组的穿刺成功率、PCI成功率、手术总时间、穿刺点并发症情况,以及随访3个月预后情况.结果 TRI组107例患者中,前壁心梗47例,下壁心梗39例,其他21例;单支病变24例,双支病变34例,三支病变49例.TFI组72例患者中,前壁心梗27例,下壁心梗29例,其他16例;单支病变12例,双支病变20例,三支病变40例.TRI组和TFI组穿刺成功率分别为97.2％和100％,P=0.401;PCI成功率分别为89.7％和95.8％,P=0.135;手术总时间分别为（79.4±32.0）min和（78.8±33.3）min,P=0.911.术后3个月的随访临床结果显示,MACE事件发生率TRI组较TFI组低.结论 经皮桡动脉直接冠脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死同经皮股动脉一样有着较高的手术成功率,且并发症较少,是急性心肌梗死介入治疗的最佳入路途径.     

经桡动脉途径介入治疗老年患者冠状动脉分叉病变

目的通过对比桡动脉、股动脉途径PCI治疗老年患者冠状动脉分叉病变的成功率、手术即刻效果及患者的术后近中期预后情况,探讨经桡动脉(TRI)途径处理老年患者冠状动脉分叉病变的可行性和安全性。方法研究共入选135例接受PCI治疗的老年冠状动脉分叉病变患者,根据初始选择的介入途径分为TRI组(n=64)和经股动脉(TFI)组(n=71),对比两组患者接受PCI治疗的成功率、造影剂用量、手术时间、并发症的发生率及再狭窄的发生率。结果TRI组64例中63例成功使用经桡动脉动脉,1例由于桡动脉严重痉挛并入股动脉组。PCI成功率TRI组为98.4%,TFI组为100%。PCI术中,TRI组84.1%的患者选用的是6F导引导管,而TFI组76.4%患者选用的是7F导引导管。术后TRI组仅1例患者出现血管并发症,而TFI组患者中有5例患者出现了血管并发症。TRI组和TFI组患者在PCI术后9个月时严重心脏不良事件的发生率(14.3%比15.3%)、支架血栓事件(1/6比1/71)及随访期造影提示主、边支界定再狭窄率(10.9%比10.0%,17.4%比22.0%)差异无统计学意义。结论经桡动脉途径PCI治疗老年患者分叉病变具有良好的可行性和安全性,有利于降低血管并发症的发生率。     

经桡动脉急诊介入治疗ST段抬高急性心肌梗死

目的 观察经桡动脉途径行急诊经皮冠脉介入(PCI)治疗ST段抬高的急性心肌梗死(STEMI)患者临床疗效及可行性.方法 选择确诊的因STEMI行急诊PCI治疗的患者225例,其中经桡动脉治疗组123例,经股动脉治疗组102例.分析比较两组患者介入治疗的成功率、疗效和术后并发症的发生率.结果 两组患者在年龄、性别、体重指数、冠心病危险因素、心肌梗死的部位、血管病变的位置、严重程度等方面比较无统计学意义;股动脉组PCI成功率为92.3%,桡动脉组为94.3%,两组间无统计学意义(P>0.05);桡动脉组术后并发症发生率(6.5%)明显低于股动脉组(15.7%,P<0.05);平均住院时间及住院期间主要心血管事件发生率两组间无统计学意义.结论 经桡动脉途径行急诊介入治疗STEMI与经股动脉途径PCI成功率相似,而术后并发症少.     

经桡动脉和经股动脉介入治疗静脉桥血管病变的比较研究

目的:比较经桡动脉介入治疗(TRI)和经股动脉介入治疗(TFI)静脉桥血管病变的临床疗效.方法:研究对象为我院2006-01至2009-12的31例TRI(桡动脉组)和115例TFI(股动脉组)的静脉桥血管病变患者,比较TRI和TFI患者临床特征、操作特点及住院期间临床疗效.结果:桡动脉组和股动脉组的X线曝光时间[(15.6±3.7)分比(14.5±3.4)分]、操作时间[(34.6±15.2)分比(37.4±18.8)分]、造影剂用量[ (225±120) ml比(263±130)ml],差异均无统计学意义(P均＞0.05).桡动脉组与股动脉组操作成功率(93.5％比95.6％,P＞0.05),差异无统计学意义;而股动脉组血管径路并发症较桡动脉组显著增加(3.2％比15.7％,P=0.04),差异有统计学意义.桡动脉组和股动脉组住院期间主要不良心脏事件(0％比2.0％)、死亡(0％比0％)、心肌梗死(0％比0.9％)、靶病变血运重建(0％比0.9％)发生率均类似,差异均无统计学意义(P均＞0.05).结论:与TFI相比,TRI静脉桥血管病变安全有效,且血管径路并发症明显减少,但造影与介入同期完成比例较少.     

急诊冠状动脉介入治疗经桡动脉入路与行血管闭合装置股动脉入路的比较研究

目的 探讨急诊冠状动脉介入治疗经桡动脉入路与经行血管闭合装置股动脉入路的有效性和安全性.方法 选取2010年1月至2012年12月在我院连续行急诊冠脉介入治疗的192例急性ST段抬高心肌梗死（STEMI）患者,依据血管入路途径将患者分为桡动脉组82例和行血管闭合装置股动脉组110例,观察疗效、并发症及住院期间主要心血管不良事件（MACE）.结果 两组临床基线资料比较差异均无统计学意义（P值均＞0.05）;两组住院期间病死率、PCI操作成功率差异均无统计学意义（P值均＞0.05）;桡动脉组PCI操作时间和Needle-to-Balloon时间较行血管闭合装置的股动脉组延长（P值均＜0.05）;桡动脉组非主要血管并发症的发生率低于行血管闭合装置的股动脉组（P=-0.016）.结论 行急诊PCI经桡动脉入路与经行血管闭合装置的股动脉入路途径相比,具有相同的MACE和住院期间病死率,因此可将其作为急诊PCI血管入路途径的选择.     

Reducing needle-to-balloon time by using a single guiding catheter during transradial primary coronary intervention

Objectives and Background: It is unknown whether using a single guiding catheter for both nonculprit and culprit vessel angiography and intervention during transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is feasible. Methods: This single‐center study enrolled 242 consecutive patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who received primary PCI. Among them, 102 patients received primary PCI via transfemoral approach (TFI), 109 patients received primary PCI via transradial approach using conventional technique (Conventional TRI), and 31 underwent primary TRI using a single guiding catheter (Single Guiding TRI). The catheter used for this purpose was 6 Fr RM® 3.5 guiding catheter. Results: Using a single guiding catheter, both coronary artery angiograms and intervention were successful in 30 of 31 patients (96.7%). Needle‐to‐balloon time (from puncture to first balloon) and door‐to‐balloon (D2B) time were similar between TFI and Conventional TRI groups and significantly lower in the Single Guiding TRI group (13.8 [TFI] and 14.1 [Conventional TRI] vs. 7.6 minutes, P < 0.001; 89.5 [TFI] and 91.0 [Conventional TRI] vs. 68.5 minutes, P = 0.008, respectively), whereas proportion of patients achieving D2B time within 90 minutes increased significantly in the Single Guiding TRI group from 51.0% for TFI and 49.5% for Conventional TRI to 74.2% (P = 0.023). Conclusions: Primary transradial PCI using a single guiding catheter is feasible and highly successful and might allow timely restoration of blood flow in infarct‐related artery. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:330–336)     

经桡动脉介入治疗冠心病的住院期间疗效和主要不良心脏事件的预测因素

目的 评价经桡动脉介入治疗冠心病的住院期间安全性和有效性及主要不良心脏事件的预测因素.方法 入选阜外心血管病医院2004年5月至2009年5月16 281例经桡动脉介入治疗冠心病患者(桡动脉组)和5388例经股动脉介入治疗冠心病患者(股动脉组).比较桡动脉组与股动脉组患者临床特征、操作特点及住院期间临床疗效,并分析经桡动脉介入治疗患者住院期间发生主要不良心脏事件(包括死亡、心肌梗死和靶病变血运重建)的预测因素.结果 与股动脉组比较,桡动脉组冠状动脉导管插入时间较长(P＜0.01),X线曝光时间、对比剂用量差异无统计学意义.桡动脉组与股动脉组操作成功率差异无统计学意义(95.5%比96.2%,P＞0.05).血管径路并发症比例桡动脉组低于股动脉组(0.1%比1.3%,P＜0.01).桡动脉组住院期间主要不良心脏事件发生率、死亡发生率均低于股动脉组(分别为1.6%比3.8%,P＜0.01;0.2%比0.4%,P＜0.01).多因素logistic回归分析表明,经桡动脉介入治疗患者住院期间发生主要不良心脏事件的独立预测因素为年龄≥65岁(OR:1.98,95%可信区间:1.50～2.61,P＜0.01)、既往心肌梗死(OR:2.14,95%可信区间:1.63～2.82,P＜0.01)、置入药物洗脱支架(OR:0.68,95%可信区间:0.47～0.98,P=0.04)、冠状动脉夹层(OR:4.08,95%可信区间:2.28～7.33,P＜0.01)、左主干病变(OR:2.12,95%可信区间:1.09～4.13,P=0.03)、支架数(OR:1.25,95%可信区间:1.09～1.43,P＜0.01)、支架总长度(OR:1.01,95%可信区间:1.00～1.02,P=0.03).结论 经桡动脉介入治疗冠心病在住院期间具有良好的有效性和安全性.年龄≥65岁、既往心肌梗死、置入药物洗脱支架、冠状动脉夹层、左主干病变、支架数、支架总长度是经桡动脉介入治疗住院期间发生主要不良心脏事件的独立预测因素.

Abstract：

Objective The purpose of this study is to evaluate the in-hospital clinical outcome of patients with coronary artery disease who underwent transradial intervention (TRI) and analyze the predictors of chinical outcome. Methods From May 2004 to May 2009, there were 16 281 patients who underwent transradial intervention, as well as 5388 patients who underwent transfemoral intervention (TFI) at our institution. The clinical characteristics, procedural characteristics, and in-hospital clinical adverse events were compared between TRI and TFI groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events ( composite of death, myocardial infarction,or target lesion revascularization) of TRI. Results The annulations time was significantly longer for TRIthan TFI (P ＜0. 01 ), fluoroscopy time, amount of contrast agent and procedural success rate (95.5% for TRI and 96. 2% for TFI) were similar between the two groups. However, the rates of vascular complications (0. 1% for TRI group and 1.3% for TFI group, P ＜0. 01 ), incidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (1.6% vs. 3. 8%, P＜ 0.01) and in-hospital death (0.2% vs. 0.4%, P＜0.01) were all significantly lower in TRI group compared with TFI group. The following characteristics were identified as independent multivariate predictors of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events of TRI: age ≥65 ( OR: 1.98,95% CI: 1. 50 - 2. 61, P ＜ 0. 01 ), prior myocardial infarction ( OR:2. 14, 95% CI: 1.63 - 2. 82, P ＜0. 01 ), use of drug-eluting stent (DES) ( OR:0. 68, 95% CI:0. 47 - 0. 98, P = 0. 04 ), dissection during procedure (OR:4.08, 95%CI:2.28-7.33, P＜0.01), left main lesion (OR:2. 12, 95% CI:1.09-4. 13, P=0.03), number of implanted stents (OR:1.25, 95% CI:1.09 - 1.43, P ＜0.01), and total stented length (OR:1.01, 95% CI:1. 00 -1. 02 , P=0.03). Conclusions In this large single-centre patient cohort, the transradial intervention is superior to transfemoral intervention in terms of in-hospital safety and efficacy. Age ≥ 65, prior myocardial infarction, use of DES, dissection during procedure, left main lesion, number of implanted stents and total stented length were identified as independent multivariate predictors of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events of TRI.     

经桡动脉行冠状动脉介入治疗在老年冠心病患者中的应用

目的探讨老年冠心病患者经桡动脉行PCI的可行性和安全性。方泼选择709例老年(年龄≥75岁)冠心病患者,根据患者接受PCI的入路途径不同,分为桡动脉组(227例)和股动脉组(482例),比较两组患者临床基线PCI的成功率、造影剂用量、手术时间、并发症的发生率以及术后6个月时发生严重心脏不良事件的情况。结果桡动脉组血脂异常患者的比例高于股动脉组(P<0.05)。桡动脉组手术成功率为97.8%,股动脉组患者全部成功接受PCI。两组手术时间和造影剂用量比较,差异无统计学意义,桡动脉组3例(1.3%)患者出现血管并发症,股动脉组27例(5.6%)出现并发症,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),桡动脉组和股动脉组患者术后6个月时严重心脏不良事件的发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(8.4% vs 7.3%,P>0.05)。结论老年冠心病患者经桡动脉行PCI具有良好的可行性和安全性。     

经桡动脉穿刺冠状动脉造影后即刻经桡动脉介入治疗

目的探讨冠心病心绞痛患者经桡动脉穿刺冠状动脉造影术后即刻选择经桡动脉行冠状动脉介入治疗的可行性、并发症以及近期疗效。方法选择临床诊断为冠心病心绞痛经桡动脉造影显示明确的冠状动脉病变后即刻采取经桡动脉介入治疗(PCI)的患者117例(桡动脉组),与同期经股动脉途径造影后即刻PCI者(股动脉组,共409例)进行比较,分析两组靶血管病变特征、疗效和并发症,并随访术后1月内心绞痛复发、心肌梗死、死亡等主要心血管事件的发生率。结果桡动脉组PCI成功率为94.0%,与股动脉组(97.6%)相比无明显差异(P>0.05)。桡动脉组造影显示明显病变(管腔狭窄程度≥70%)的血管数量累计为210支,其中182支作为靶血管进行了成功的PCI,病变血管的血运重建率为86.7%,低于股动脉组(93.4%),差异具有显著性(P<0.01)。而且成功PCI者中慢性闭塞病变的所占的比例也明显低于股动脉组,差异具有显著性(P<0.05)。桡动脉组术后与穿刺有关的总的并发症的发生率明显低于股动脉组(P<0.01)。术后平均卧床时间和平均住院天数均明显短于股动脉组。随访PCI术后1个月期间主要心血管事件两组之间无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论经桡动脉穿刺冠状动脉造影术后即刻行冠状动脉介入治疗的成功率较高,并发症少,具有可行性。但对于复杂病变选择经股动脉途径PCI     

Feasibility limits of transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction in the real life (TRAP-AMI)

Background

There is growing evidence that transradial (TRI) as compared to transfemoral (TFI) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcome driven by less hemorrhagic complications, in particular in STEMI patients receiving aggressive antithrombotic treatment. Feasibility rate of TRI in STEMI patients has not yet been evaluated.

Methods/results

Four-hundred seventy-five consecutive STEMI patients (< 12 h) without cardiogenic shock were prospectively screened for this all-comer single-centre registry between January 2008 and August 2010. Nine patients were excluded for a priori ineligibility for TRI (forearm shunt for dialysis, prior TRI failure). In the 466 patients enrolled, the operator's opinion about ease of radial puncture was assessed in 4 categories, based on radial pulse quality. Operators were advised not to attempt TRI if ease of puncture was judged “probably difficult/impossible”. In case of puncture failure the operator switched immediately to TFI.The mean age of patients was 61 ± 14 (range 27–94) years. Seventy-three percent were men, 17% had diabetes. Nine percent had previous PCI. Glycoprotein inhibitors were used in 70%, and thrombectomy was performed in 70% of patients. PCI was performed using 6 F and 5 F guiding catheters. Procedural success rate was 98.2% (TIMI flow ≥ 2).In 4.1% (n = 19) of patients the operator judged ease of radial puncture “probably difficult/impossible” and no TRI attempt was performed (primary TFI). In the 447 patients with TRI attempt, TRI failure requiring switch to TFI (secondary TFI) was necessary in 22 patients (4.7% of total) following radial puncture failure (n = 15), dissection of the radial artery (n = 1), prohibitive tortuosities or stenosis of the upper limb axis (n = 2), or non-selective position or lack of stability of the guiding catheter (n = 2). After the start of the angioplasty procedure, switch from TR to TF was not necessary in any patient. In total, the overall feasibility rate of TRI was 91.2%. Independent predictors of final TFI were age ≥ 80 years (adjusted OR: 2.37; 95% CI:1.05–5.34, p = 0.037), body weight < 60 kg (adjusted OR: 2.84; 95% CI:1.22–6.59, p = 0.015); and previous PCI (adjusted OR: 3.42; 95% CI:1.40–8.37, p = 0.007); female gender was borderline significant (adjusted OR:2.10; 95% CI:0.97–4.54, p = 0.059).

Conclusion

In STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock and without a priori indication for TFI, PCI can be performed via the radial artery in more than 90% of cases with high procedural success rate. Operator's judgement of eligibility for TRI based on radial pulse quality is predictive of successful TRI in 95% of cases. TR failure is significantly more common in the elderly and in patients with low body weight.     

急诊经桡动脉与股动脉入路介入治疗ST段抬高急性心肌梗死对比研究

目的观察经桡动脉入路行急诊ST段抬高急性心肌梗死直接经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗的有效性和安全性。方法选择沈阳军区总医院2005年1月至2006年10月连续607例ST段抬高性急性心肌梗死(STEMI)住院患者,分别接受经桡动脉入路(273例)或经股动脉入路(334例)途径行PCI治疗,观察两组手术成功率和并发症发生率。结果两组患者PCI成功率差异无统计学意义(97.07%对95.81%,P>0.05)。经桡动脉入路组局部血肿、假性动脉瘤、迷走反射发生率显著低于经股动脉入路组。结论行PCI治疗的STEMI患者经桡动脉入路途径是安全、有效和可行的方法,与经股动脉比较,经桡动脉途径可减少并发症的发生。     

50例急性心肌梗死患者经桡动脉行急诊PCI的疗效

目的：分析经桡动脉行急诊冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）对急性心肌梗死患者抢救效果。方法：随机抽取我院2009年2月-2013年6月期间收治的急性心肌梗死并接受PCI治疗的100例患者为研究对象,采用数字表法使随机被分为经股动脉介入治疗组（TFA组,50例）和经桡动脉介入治疗组（TRA组,50例）,对比两组 X穿刺点压迫时间、手术参数差异、手术成功率及并发症发生率。结果：两组患者手术时间以及手术成功率差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;与TFA组比较,TRA组门球时间[（18.7±5.6）min比（20.1±6.7）min]、X线曝光时间[（16.7±5.6）min比（22.1±6.7）min]显著增加,穿刺点压迫时间[（14.8±5.7）min比（3.9±1.6）min]显著缩短,并发症发生率（16.0％比4.0％）显著下降（P＜0.05或＜0.01）。结论：与经股动脉行冠状动脉介入治疗比较,经桡动脉介入治疗疗效相似,但穿刺点压迫时间更短,并发症更少,故可作为临床治疗急性心肌梗死首选方案,更适用于基层医院。     

经桡动脉途径行急诊冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死的临床应用研究

目的探讨经桡动脉途径行急诊冠状动脉介入治疗的疗效及安全性。方法回顾性分析596例急性心肌梗死患者经桡动脉途径(桡动脉组,n=296)或股动脉途径(股动脉组,n=300)行急诊冠状动脉介入治疗的临床资料,着重分析比较两种穿刺途径的方法和并发症情况。分别记录动脉穿刺时间、X-线暴光时间、造影时间、经皮冠状动脉介入(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)治疗时间、住院时间及血肿等血管并发症的发生率。结果 295例经桡动脉治疗患者穿刺成功,穿刺时间(4.4±1.6)min,X-线暴光时间(4.6±1.4)min,造影时间为(8.0±2.4)min,PCI治疗时间为(30.0±4.8)min,住院时间为(3.2±1.6)d,有6例发生前臂血肿,发生率为2.03%(6/296);股动脉组299例患者穿刺成功,穿刺时间(2.4±0.8)min,X-线暴光时间(4.4±1.3)min,造影时间为(7.6±2.0)min,PCI时间为(28.6±4.4)min,住院时间为(5.4±1.8)d,有18例发生股动脉血肿,发生率为6.0%(18/300),其中2例为假性股动脉瘤形成。造影时间、PCI治疗时间两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);住院时间、并发症的发生率股动脉组高于桡动脉组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论经桡动脉行急性心肌梗死的急诊冠状动脉介入治疗是安全和可靠的,在临床实践中值得在有条件的单位有选择性地应用推广。