• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

75岁以上患者冠状动脉造影及介入治疗的桡动脉与股动脉入路比较

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and intervention in patients above 75 years of age.

作者信息

Achenbach Stephan, Ropers Dieter, Kallert Lisa, Turan Nesrin, Krähner Robert, Wolf Tobias, Garlichs Christoph, Flachskampf Frank, Daniel Werner G, Ludwig Josef

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

出版信息

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008 Nov 1;72(5):629-35. doi: 10.1002/ccd.21696.

DOI:10.1002/ccd.21696
PMID:18798237
Abstract

AIMS

The transradial (TR) approach has potentially lower complication rates than transfemoral (TF) approach coronary angiography. However, it may be technically more challenging, especially in elderly patients with alterations in vascular anatomy. We thus determined success rates, procedural data, and complication rates of TR angiography in comparison to the TF approach in elderly patients in a randomized, prospective trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Four hundred consecutive patients >or=75 years with known or suspected coronary artery disease were included in the study. After exclusion of 93 patients with contraindications to the radial approach, 152 patients were randomized to the TR and 155 to TF coronary angiography and intervention. In 13 patients randomized to TR, cross-over to TF was necessary (9%). Total examination time was significantly longer for the TR approach (18.1 vs. 15.0 min, P = 0.009), but no difference was found for fluoroscopy time, number of catheters used, or amount of contrast agent. The rate of major complications (bleeding requiring surgery or transfusion, stroke) was 0% for TR and 3.2% for TF approach (P < 0.001). Minor complications occurred in 1.3% versus 5.8% of patients (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients, TR coronary angiography and intervention has a high technical success rate and lower complication rates than the TF approach.

摘要

目的

经桡动脉(TR)途径冠状动脉造影的并发症发生率可能低于经股动脉(TF)途径。然而,其技术难度可能更大,尤其是在血管解剖结构改变的老年患者中。因此,我们在一项随机、前瞻性试验中,比较了老年患者经桡动脉造影与经股动脉造影的成功率、操作数据及并发症发生率。

方法与结果

本研究纳入了400例年龄≥75岁、已知或疑似患有冠状动脉疾病的患者。在排除93例有桡动脉途径禁忌证的患者后,152例患者被随机分配接受经桡动脉冠状动脉造影及干预,155例患者接受经股动脉冠状动脉造影及干预。在随机分配至经桡动脉组的13例患者中(9%),有必要转为经股动脉途径。经桡动脉途径的总检查时间显著更长(18.1分钟对15.0分钟,P = 0.009),但在透视时间、使用导管数量或造影剂用量方面未发现差异。经桡动脉途径的主要并发症(需要手术或输血的出血、中风)发生率为0%,经股动脉途径为3.2%(P < 0.001)。次要并发症在患者中的发生率分别为1.3%和5.8%(P < 0.001)。

结论

在老年患者中,经桡动脉冠状动脉造影及干预具有较高的技术成功率,且并发症发生率低于经股动脉途径。

相似文献

1
Transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and intervention in patients above 75 years of age.75岁以上患者冠状动脉造影及介入治疗的桡动脉与股动脉入路比较
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008 Nov 1;72(5):629-35. doi: 10.1002/ccd.21696.
2
A randomized comparison of the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary artery bypass graft angiography and intervention: the RADIAL-CABG Trial (RADIAL Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Angiography and Intervention).经桡动脉与股动脉入路行冠状动脉旁路移植血管造影和介入治疗的随机对比:RADIAL-CABG 试验(经桡动脉与股动脉入路行冠状动脉旁路移植血管造影和介入治疗的比较)。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Nov;6(11):1138-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.08.004. Epub 2013 Oct 16.
3
A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty.经桡动脉与经股动脉途径行冠状动脉造影及介入治疗的随机对比研究
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009 Nov;2(11):1047-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.07.016.
4
Transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty - A prospective, randomized comparison.经桡动脉与经股动脉途径用于冠状动脉造影和血管成形术的前瞻性随机对照比较
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017 Jan 11;17(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s12872-016-0457-2.
5
Transradial versus transfemoral ancillary approach in complex structural, coronary, and peripheral interventions. Results from the multicenter ancillary registry: A study of the Italian Radial Club.复杂结构性、冠状动脉及外周介入治疗中经桡动脉与经股动脉辅助入路的比较。多中心辅助注册研究结果:意大利桡动脉俱乐部的一项研究
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Jan 1;91(1):97-102. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27087. Epub 2017 May 2.
6
Transradial and transfemoral coronary angiography and interventions: 1-year outcomes after initiating the transradial approach in a cardiology training program.经桡动脉和股动脉冠状动脉造影和介入治疗:在心脏病学培训计划中启动经桡动脉入路后的 1 年结果。
Am Heart J. 2013 Mar;165(3):310-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.10.014. Epub 2012 Nov 17.
7
Transradial versus transfemoral method of percutaneous coronary revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: comparison of procedural and late-term outcomes.经桡动脉与经股动脉途径行冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干病变的比较:手术操作及长期预后比较。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Oct;3(10):1035-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.09.003.
8
Comparison of Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches for Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Intervention in Patients with Coronary Bypass Grafts.冠状动脉旁路移植术后患者行冠状动脉造影及经皮介入治疗时桡动脉与股动脉入路的比较
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Jan;21(1):2-5. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2019.03.002. Epub 2019 Mar 12.
9
Transradial approach versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and coronary angioplasty.经桡动脉途径与经股动脉途径用于冠状动脉造影和冠状动脉成形术的比较。
Crit Care Nurs Q. 2014 Apr-Jun;37(2):159-69. doi: 10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000014.
10
Learning curve in transradial coronary angiography.经桡动脉冠状动脉造影的学习曲线。
Am J Cardiol. 2011 Oct 15;108(8):1092-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.009. Epub 2011 Jul 26.

引用本文的文献

1
Percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients: clinical benefits and challenges from single center experience.老年患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗:单中心经验的临床益处与挑战
Am J Cardiovasc Dis. 2025 Apr 25;15(2):123-130. doi: 10.62347/DGQV8894. eCollection 2025.
2
Transradial versus transfemoral access in diagnostic cerebral angiography: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and complications.诊断性脑血管造影中经桡动脉与经股动脉入路:临床结局和并发症的全面系统评价与荟萃分析
Neuroradiology. 2025 Mar 29. doi: 10.1007/s00234-025-03581-6.
3
Chronological vs Biological Age in Interventional Cardiology: A Comprehensive Approach to Care for Older Adults: JACC Family Series.
介入心脏病学中的时间年龄与生物年龄:为老年患者提供全面关怀的综合方法:JACC 家族系列。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 Apr 22;17(8):961-978. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2024.01.284. Epub 2024 Apr 8.
4
Predicting difficult transradial approach guiding into left internal carotid artery on unruptured intracranial aneurysms.预测未破裂颅内动脉瘤经桡动脉途径穿刺至左颈内动脉的难度。
Surg Neurol Int. 2023 Jul 7;14:233. doi: 10.25259/SNI_355_2023. eCollection 2023.
5
Standardized Forearm Angiography Increases Procedural Success Rates of Coronary Angiography and PCI: A Retrospective Analysis of an all-Comers Patient Cohort in a Real-Life Scenario.标准化前臂血管造影术可提高冠状动脉造影和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的手术成功率:一项真实场景下所有患者队列的回顾性分析。
Cardiol Cardiovasc Med. 2022;6(2):124-136. doi: 10.26502/fccm.92920250. Epub 2022 Apr 7.
6
Left vs. right radial approach for coronary catheterization: Relation to age and severe aortic stenosis.冠状动脉导管插入术的左桡动脉与右桡动脉入路:与年龄和重度主动脉瓣狭窄的关系
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Oct 31;9:1022415. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1022415. eCollection 2022.
7
Radial Access for Coronary Angiography Carries Fewer Complications Compared with Femoral Access: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.与股动脉入路相比,桡动脉入路进行冠状动脉造影的并发症更少:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
J Clin Med. 2021 May 17;10(10):2163. doi: 10.3390/jcm10102163.
8
Cardiac Catheterizations in Patients With Prior Coronary Bypass Surgery: Impact of Access Strategy on Short-Term Safety and Long-Term Efficacy Outcomes.经皮冠状动脉旁路移植术后患者的冠状动脉造影术:入路策略对短期安全性和长期疗效结局的影响。
Angiology. 2021 May;72(5):465-473. doi: 10.1177/0003319720987351. Epub 2021 Jan 19.
9
Transradial approach and its variations for neurointerventional procedures: Literature review.经桡动脉入路及其在神经介入手术中的变体:文献综述
Surg Neurol Int. 2020 Aug 15;11:248. doi: 10.25259/SNI_366_2020. eCollection 2020.
10
Contemporary Revascularization Dilemmas in Older Adults.老年人当代血运重建困境
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 4;9(3):e014477. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014477. Epub 2020 Jan 24.