• 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

对接受静脉溶栓后早期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者,桡动脉入路与股动脉入路的随机对照研究。

Randomized comparison of radial versus femoral approach for patients with STEMI undergoing early PCI following intravenous thrombolysis.

作者信息

Wang Yan-Bo, Fu Xiang-Hua, Wang Xue-Chao, Gu Xin-Shun, Zhao Yun-Jun, Hao Guo-Zhen, Jiang Yun-Fa, Li Shi-Qiang, Wu Wei-Li, Fan Wei-Ze

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No. 215, Heping West Road, Shijiazhuang 050000, PR China.

出版信息

J Invasive Cardiol. 2012 Aug;24(8):412-6.

PMID:22865313
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following thrombolysis may be beneficial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who were admitted at a non-PCI hospital. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the radial artery as a vascular route for early PCI following thrombolysis in patients with STEMI.

METHODS

All consecutive STEMI patients within 12 hours after thrombolysis were enrolled, and eligible patients were randomly assigned to either transfemoral (TFI group) or transradial catheterization (TRI group). Several time intervals were measured. The puncture success rate and ambulation time were assessed. The vascular access-site complications were also assessed after the PCI procedure, and the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in hospital was observed.

RESULTS

A total of 119 cases were enrolled, with 60 in the TRI group and 59 in the TFI group. There were no significant differences in transfer time and total procedure time. The puncture time in the TRI group was not significantly different compared to the TFI group. The time between PCI and ambulation in the TRI group was shorter than in the TFI group. There was a trend toward lower in the incidence of bleeding complications and vascular complications in the TRI group.

CONCLUSION

TRI for STEMI patients following intravenous thrombolysis was as safe and feasible as TFI, with a trend toward lower incidence of bleeding complications and vascular complications.

摘要

背景

对于在非PCI医院就诊的ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者,溶栓后早期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)可能有益。本研究的目的是评估桡动脉作为STEMI患者溶栓后早期PCI血管通路的安全性和有效性。

方法

纳入所有溶栓后12小时内连续的STEMI患者,符合条件的患者被随机分配至经股动脉(TFI组)或经桡动脉导管插入术(TRI组)。测量了几个时间间隔。评估穿刺成功率和下床活动时间。PCI术后还评估了血管穿刺部位并发症,并观察了住院期间主要不良心脏事件(MACE)的发生率。

结果

共纳入119例患者,TRI组60例,TFI组59例。转运时间和总手术时间无显著差异。TRI组的穿刺时间与TFI组相比无显著差异。TRI组PCI至下床活动的时间比TFI组短。TRI组出血并发症和血管并发症的发生率有降低趋势。

结论

STEMI患者静脉溶栓后行TRI与TFI一样安全可行,出血并发症和血管并发症的发生率有降低趋势。

相似文献

1
Randomized comparison of radial versus femoral approach for patients with STEMI undergoing early PCI following intravenous thrombolysis.对接受静脉溶栓后早期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者,桡动脉入路与股动脉入路的随机对照研究。
J Invasive Cardiol. 2012 Aug;24(8):412-6.
2
Feasibility limits of transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction in the real life (TRAP-AMI).经桡动脉直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死的真实世界可行性限制(TRAP-AMI)。
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Sep 30;168(2):1056-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.10.024. Epub 2012 Nov 16.
3
Safety and feasibility of transradial approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction.老年急性心肌梗死患者经桡动脉途径行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的安全性与可行性
Chin Med J (Engl). 2008 May 5;121(9):782-6.
4
Transradial intervention for patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction with or without cardiogenic shock.经桡动脉入径介入治疗伴或不伴心原性休克的 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jan 1;83(1):E1-7. doi: 10.1002/ccd.24896. Epub 2013 Sep 25.
5
A single-center experience of transitioning from a routine transfemoral to a transradial intervention approach in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Impact on door-to-balloon time and clinical outcomes.单中心经验:从常规经股动脉到经桡动脉介入治疗 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死的转变:对门球时间和临床结果的影响。
J Cardiol. 2013 Jul;62(1):12-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2013.02.008. Epub 2013 Apr 22.
6
ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial.多中心随机临床试验中经桡动脉或股动脉途径治疗 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死:STEMI-RADIAL 试验。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 18;63(10):964-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.08.1651. Epub 2013 Nov 21.
7
Reducing needle-to-balloon time by using a single guiding catheter during transradial primary coronary intervention.经桡动脉行直接冠状动脉介入治疗中使用单根指引导管以减少球囊扩张时间。
J Interv Cardiol. 2012 Aug;25(4):330-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2011.00717.x. Epub 2012 Feb 26.
8
Comparison of door-to-balloon times for primary PCI using transradial versus transfemoral approach.经桡动脉与经股动脉途径行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的门球时间比较。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Jun 1;75(7):991-5. doi: 10.1002/ccd.22425.
9
Transradial versus transfemoral coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: is transradial coronary intervention suitable for emergency PCI in high-risk acute myocardial infarction?经桡动脉与经股动脉冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克:经桡动脉冠状动脉介入治疗是否适用于高危急性心肌梗死的急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗?
J Invasive Cardiol. 2014 May;26(5):196-202.
10
Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.经桡动脉与股动脉入路行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者的随机对照试验的荟萃分析
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Aug;6(8):814-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.04.010.

引用本文的文献

1
TRUST Technique for Neurointervention: A Promising Alternative for Complex Cases.TRUST 技术在神经介入中的应用:复杂病例的有前途的选择。
Curr Neurovasc Res. 2024;21(1):47-53. doi: 10.2174/0115672026291503240105093155.
2
Rate of periprocedural stroke in diagnostic cerebral angiograms comparing transradial versus transfemoral access.经桡动脉与经股动脉入路诊断性脑血管造影术围手术期卒中发生率的比较。
Interv Neuroradiol. 2024 Oct;30(5):679-682. doi: 10.1177/15910199221142653. Epub 2022 Nov 30.
3
Trans-radial approach versus trans-femoral approach in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中急性冠状动脉综合征患者经桡动脉入路与经股动脉入路的比较:一项随机对照试验的更新荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 28;17(4):e0266709. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266709. eCollection 2022.
4
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.
5
A comparative study of transradial versus transfemoral approach for flow diversion.血流导向装置经桡动脉入路与经股动脉入路的对比研究。
Neuroradiology. 2021 Aug;63(8):1335-1343. doi: 10.1007/s00234-021-02672-4. Epub 2021 Feb 9.
6
Anatomic Snuffbox (Distal Radial Artery) and Radial Artery Access for Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms with FDA-Approved Flow Diverters.解剖鼻烟窝(远端桡动脉)和桡动脉入路在经美国食品和药物管理局批准的血流导向装置治疗颅内动脉瘤中的应用。
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2021 Mar;42(3):487-492. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6953. Epub 2021 Jan 14.
7
Transradial access for flow diversion of intracranial aneurysms: Case series.经桡动脉入路颅内动脉瘤血流导向装置置入:病例系列。
Interv Neuroradiol. 2021 Feb;27(1):68-74. doi: 10.1177/1591019920938961. Epub 2020 Jul 5.
8
Transitioning to Transradial Access for Cerebral Aneurysm Embolization.经桡动脉入路行脑动脉瘤栓塞术的转变。
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Nov;40(11):1947-1953. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6234. Epub 2019 Oct 3.
9
Efficacy and safety of a 260-cm Amplatz Super Stiff guidewire during transradial percutaneous coronary intervention.260厘米长的安普拉斯超硬导丝在经桡动脉冠状动脉介入治疗中的有效性和安全性
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Oct;97(42):e12568. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012568.
10
Procedure Time Comparison between Radial Versus Femoral Access in ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Undergoing Emergent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-analysis of Controlled Randomized Trials.接受急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死患者桡动脉与股动脉入路的手术时间比较:一项对照随机试验的荟萃分析
Heart Views. 2018 Jan-Mar;19(1):1-7. doi: 10.4103/HEARTVIEWS.HEARTVIEWS_82_16.