论文部分内容阅读
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。
Objective: To compare the clinical effects of transradial interventional therapy (TRI) and transsphenoidal interventional therapy (TFI) in the treatment of venous bridge disease. Methods: The clinical data of 31 patients with TRI (radial artery group) and 115 patients with TFI (femoral artery group) in our hospital from January 2006 to December 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical features, operational characteristics and clinical characteristics of TRI and TFI patients were compared Clinical efficacy during hospitalization. Results: The time of X-ray exposure [(15.6 ± 3.7) min (14.5 ± 3.4) min], operation time [(34.6 ± 15.2) min (37.4 ± 18.8) min) The dosage of (225 ± 120) ml (263 ± 130) ml had no significant difference (all P> 0.05). Radial artery and femoral artery group operation success rate (93.5% vs 95.6%, P> 0.05), the difference was not statistically significant; while the femoral artery group pathological complications than the radial artery group was significantly increased (3.2% vs 15.7%, P = 0.04), the difference was statistically significant. The major adverse cardiac events (0% vs. 2.0%), death (0% vs 0%), myocardial infarction (0% vs 0.9%), target lesion revascularization (0% vs 0.9 %) Were similar, the difference was not statistically significant (P all> 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with TFI, TRI venous bridge is safe and effective, and the complication of vascular access is significantly reduced. However, the ratio of angiography and intervention is less than that of TFI.