目的：对比分析冠心病的治疗过程中通过经股动脉和桡动脉两种不同介入途径的临床治疗效果。方法选取在我院接受冠心病介入治疗的患者200例，根据治疗方法的不同，随机将患者分为两组，经股动脉组( B组)及桡动脉组( A组)，各100例。各组患者按照不同的动脉途径进行穿刺治疗，最后根据手术过程中的状态、治疗效果及术后并发症将两组患者进行对比。结果两组患者置管成功率、置入支架的数量和长度、对比剂用量方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0．05)；A组平均手术时间长于B组，平均住院时间短于B组，并发症发至率低于B组，差异有统计学意义(P<0．05)。结论在冠心病的治疗方法中，经股动脉及桡动脉介入治疗均具有良好的治疗效果，但桡动脉介入治疗在患者并发症发生率、住院时间方面较股动脉介入治疗更佳，值得推广。%Objective To compare and analyze the clinical therapeutic efficacy of the radial approach and the femoral ap-proach for coronary intervention in patients with coronary heart disease. Methods We selected 200 patients with coronary disease treated in our hospital,and divided them into two groups randomly according to different treatment methods,the radial artery group and the femoral artery group,100 cases in each group. Patients in each group were treated with puncture according to different arterial routes, and we compared the patients in the two groups in the end, according to the state during the operation, therapeutic efficacy and postoperative complications. Results The mean operation time. haspitalization time and complication rate had significantly difference between the two groups (P<0. 05), but there was no statistically significant difference in the catheterization success rate、number and length of stening、the amount of comtrast agent(P>0. 05). Conclution The interventional therapy via the radial artery and the femoral artery both have good therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of coronary heart disease, but the radial approach of inter-ventional therapy is better than femoral approach in the complication rate,hospitalization time and treatment and nursing cost of pa-tients,and worth being popularized.
展开▼
