[1]刘 学,杨 华,王晓红,等.桡动脉入路猪尾导管辅助6.5 F指引导管和6 F指引导管治疗冠状动脉病变对比研究[J].介入放射学杂志,2023,32(12):1174-1177.
 LIU Xue,YANG Hua,WANG Xiaohong,et al.Pig-tail catheter-assisted 6.5 F guiding catheter versus 6 F guiding catheter in transradial interventional treatment of coronary artery lesions: a comparative study[J].journal interventional radiology,2023,32(12):1174-1177.
点击复制

桡动脉入路猪尾导管辅助6.5 F指引导管和6 F指引导管治疗冠状动脉病变对比研究()

PDF下载中关闭

分享到:

《介入放射学杂志》[ISSN:1008-794X/CN:31-1796/R]

卷:
32
期数:
2023年12
页码:
1174-1177
栏目:
神经介入
出版日期:
2024-01-02

文章信息/Info

Title:
Pig-tail catheter-assisted 6.5 F guiding catheter versus 6 F guiding catheter in transradial interventional treatment of coronary artery lesions: a comparative study
作者:
刘 学 杨 华 王晓红 温改改 郝国荣
Author(s):
LIU Xue YANG Hua WANG Xiaohong WEN Gaigai HAO Guorong
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi Province 710032, China
关键词:
【关键词】 桡动脉入路 6.5 F指引导管 冠状动脉疾病
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
【摘要】 目的 对比桡动脉入路猪尾导管辅助6.5 F指引导管和6 F指引导管治疗冠状动脉病变的
有效性和安全性。方法 连续纳入2021年1月至2022年6月于空军军医大学西京医院接受PCI治疗冠状动脉病变患者共390例,随机数字表法分为猪尾导管辅助组、6.5 F鞘组与6 F鞘组,各130例。比较3组指引导管到位成功率、桡动脉痉挛、前臂疼痛或不适、前臂血肿、桡动脉创口压迫时间、止血成功率、术后桡动脉直径、远端肿胀消退时间、假性动脉瘤、桡动脉闭塞等情况。结果 3组患者指引导管到位时间、桡动脉创口压迫时间、前臂血肿、止血成功率、术后桡动脉直径及桡动脉闭塞率比较差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。6.5 F鞘组与6 F鞘组相比,术中桡动脉痉挛、前臂疼痛或不适比较差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05),猪尾导管辅助组桡动脉痉挛和前臂疼痛不适明显好于6.5 F鞘组、6 F鞘组(均P<0.05)。 结论 桡动脉入路PCI治疗中6.5 F指引导管和6 F指引导管同样安全有效。采用猪尾导管辅助6.5 F指引导管可改善患者桡动脉痉挛,减轻前臂疼痛。

参考文献/References:

[1] Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, et al. A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial,brachial and femoral approaches: the access study[J].J Am Coll Cardiol, 1997, 29: 1269-1275.
[2] Roy S, Kabach M, Patel DB, et al. Radial artery access compli-cations: prevention, diagnosis and management[J]. Cardiovasc Revasc Med, 2022, 40: 163-171.
[3] Kolkailah AA, Alreshq RS, Muhammed AM, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2018, 4:CD012318.
[4] Wang Y, Tang J, Ni J, et al. A comparative study of TR band and a new hemostatic compression device after transradial coronary catheterization[J]. J Interv Med, 2018, 1: 221-228.
[5] Ayoub M, Lutsch S, Behnes M, et al. Sex-based differences in rotational atherectomy and long- term clinical outcomes[J]. J Clin Med, 2023, 12: 5044.
[6] 李 浪,曾书燚,巫相宏,等. 中国南方人群桡、尺动脉内径特点及其在冠状动脉介入治疗中的临床意义[J]. 中国循环杂志, 2011, 26:351-354.
[7] 郑 寅,蔡华秀,温咏康,等. 经远端桡动脉路径行冠脉造影和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的安全性和有效性Meta分析[J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2023, 32:533-541.
[8] Gargiulo G, Giacoppo D, Jolly SS, et al. Effects on mortality and major bleeding of radial versus femoral artery access for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: meta- analysis of individual patient data from 7 multicenter randomized clinical trials[J]. Circulation, 2022, 146: 1329-1343.
[9] Reifart J, Gohring S, Albrecht A, et al. Acceptance and safety of femoral versus radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI): results from a large monitor- controlled German registry (QuIK)[J]. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2022, 22: 7.
[10] Calabro P, Golia E, Crisci M. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography[J]. Angiology, 2018, 69: 286-287.
[11] Ng AK, Ng PY, Ip A, et al. Association between radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention and long-term mortality[J]. J Am Heart Assoc, 2021, 10: e021256.
[12] 陈建宁,胡文志. 无鞘7 F普通导引导管经桡动脉介入治疗冠状动脉病变临床效果[J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2017, 26:296-298.
[13] Din JN, Murphy A, Chu K, et al. Radial artery pseudoaneurysms after transradial cardiac catheterisation[J]. Vasa, 2016, 45: 229-232.
[14] 颜志平,李佳睿,董伟华,等.经桡动脉入路外周介入中国专家共识[J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2023, 32:205-214.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
(收稿日期:2023- 01-28)
(本文编辑:谷 珂)
更新日期/Last Update: 2024-01-02