• 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

经远端桡动脉入路(dTRA)行冠状动脉介入治疗对低体重指数患者的疗效和安全性。

Efficacy and Safety of Coronary Intervention via Distal Transradial Access (dTRA) in Patients with Low Body Mass Index.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Wujin Hospital Affiliated with Jiangsu University, The Wujin Clinical College of Xuzhou Medical University, 2nd Yongning North Road, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.

出版信息

J Interv Cardiol. 2022 Aug 24;2022:1901139. doi: 10.1155/2022/1901139. eCollection 2022.

DOI:10.1155/2022/1901139
PMID:36082307
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9433246/
Abstract

The study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of coronary intervention via distal transradial access (dTRA) in patients with low body mass index (BMI). A total of 67 patients with low BMI who underwent coronary intervention, comprising 29 patients via dTRA and 38 patients via conventional transradial access (cTRA), were retrospectively included. There was no significant difference in the puncture success rate between the two groups (dTRA 96.6%, cTRA 97.4%, =0.846). Compared with the cTRA group, the success rate of one-needle puncture in the dTRA group was lower (51.7% vs. 81.6%, =0.020). The compression haemostasis time in the dTRA group was shorter than that in the cTRA group (  <  0.001). However, the incidence of radial artery occlusion was lower in the dTRA group than in the cTRA group (4.0% . 33.3%, =0.007). In conclusion, coronary intervention via dTRA was safe and effective in patients with low BMI.

摘要

本研究旨在探讨经远端桡动脉入路(dTRA)行冠状动脉介入治疗在低体重指数(BMI)患者中的疗效和安全性。共纳入 67 例低 BMI 行冠状动脉介入治疗的患者,其中 29 例行 dTRA,38 例行传统经桡动脉入路(cTRA)。两组穿刺成功率无显著差异(dTRA 96.6%,cTRA 97.4%,=0.846)。与 cTRA 组相比,dTRA 组一针穿刺成功率较低(51.7%比 81.6%,=0.020)。dTRA 组压迫止血时间短于 cTRA 组( <  0.001)。但 dTRA 组桡动脉闭塞发生率低于 cTRA 组(4.0%比 33.3%,=0.007)。总之,dTRA 行冠状动脉介入治疗在低 BMI 患者中安全有效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d0a/9433246/94f632bb61fa/JITC2022-1901139.004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d0a/9433246/7c98bcae319b/JITC2022-1901139.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d0a/9433246/c1c6af21424b/JITC2022-1901139.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d0a/9433246/5c4f0caeb55f/JITC2022-1901139.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d0a/9433246/94f632bb61fa/JITC2022-1901139.004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d0a/9433246/7c98bcae319b/JITC2022-1901139.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d0a/9433246/c1c6af21424b/JITC2022-1901139.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d0a/9433246/5c4f0caeb55f/JITC2022-1901139.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d0a/9433246/94f632bb61fa/JITC2022-1901139.004.jpg

相似文献

1
Efficacy and Safety of Coronary Intervention via Distal Transradial Access (dTRA) in Patients with Low Body Mass Index.经远端桡动脉入路(dTRA)行冠状动脉介入治疗对低体重指数患者的疗效和安全性。
J Interv Cardiol. 2022 Aug 24;2022:1901139. doi: 10.1155/2022/1901139. eCollection 2022.
2
Comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching.经倾向评分匹配的单中心队列研究比较急性胸痛患者经远端桡动脉入路与传统桡动脉入路的可行性和安全性。
BMC Geriatr. 2023 Jun 3;23(1):348. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-04058-y.
3
Outcomes of distal versus conventional transradial access for coronary angiography and intervention: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.经桡动脉远端与传统入路行冠状动脉造影和介入治疗的结局比较:一项更新的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Cardiol. 2021 Dec 1;344:47-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.10.003. Epub 2021 Oct 6.
4
Distal Versus Conventional Transradial Artery Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: A Meta-Analysis.经桡动脉入路(远段 vs. 常规)行冠状动脉造影和介入治疗的比较:一项荟萃分析。
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Oct;21(10):1209-1213. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.03.020. Epub 2020 Mar 14.
5
Comparison of Distal Transradial Access in Anatomic Snuffbox Versus Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography.经桡动脉解剖鼻烟窝入路与经桡动脉入路行冠状动脉造影的比较。
Heart Surg Forum. 2020 Jun 12;23(4):E407-E410. doi: 10.1532/hsf.3041.
6
Comparison of long-term radial artery occlusion via distal vs. conventional transradial access (CONDITION): a randomized controlled trial.经远端桡动脉与传统桡动脉入路比较桡动脉长期闭塞的情况(CONDITION):一项随机对照试验。
BMC Med. 2024 Feb 8;22(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03281-7.
7
Distal transradial access for cardiac catheterization: A systematic scoping review.经桡动脉远端入路行心导管术:系统范围界定综述。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Dec;96(7):1381-1389. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28623. Epub 2019 Nov 29.
8
Access-site hematoma in distal and conventional transradial access: a randomized trial.远端桡动脉入路和传统桡动脉入路的穿刺部位血肿:一项随机试验。
Minerva Cardiol Angiol. 2022 Apr;70(2):129-137. doi: 10.23736/S2724-5683.21.05483-9. Epub 2021 Mar 11.
9
Feasibility and safety of the successive use of distal transradial access for coronary angiography and intervention in the same arm.同一手臂连续使用桡动脉远端通路进行冠状动脉造影和介入治疗的可行性与安全性。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Nov 15;98(6):E796-E801. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29938. Epub 2021 Aug 28.
10
Distal or Traditional Transradial Access Site for Coronary Procedures: A Single-Center, Randomized Study.经远端桡动脉或传统桡动脉入路行冠状动脉介入治疗:一项单中心、随机研究。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Jan 10;15(1):22-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.09.037. Epub 2021 Dec 15.

引用本文的文献

1
Distal versus proximal radial access in coronary angiography: a meta-analysis.冠状动脉造影中桡动脉远端与近端入路:一项荟萃分析。
Clin Res Cardiol. 2024 Sep 17. doi: 10.1007/s00392-024-02505-3.
2
Comparison of long-term radial artery occlusion via distal vs. conventional transradial access (CONDITION): a randomized controlled trial.经远端桡动脉与传统桡动脉入路比较桡动脉长期闭塞的情况(CONDITION):一项随机对照试验。
BMC Med. 2024 Feb 8;22(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03281-7.
3
Comparison Between Distal Trans-radial Access and Conventional Trans-radial Access for Coronary Angiography.

本文引用的文献

1
Safety and efficacy of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via distal transradial artery access in the anatomical snuffbox: a single-centre prospective cohort study using a propensity score method.经解剖鼻烟窝远端桡动脉入路行冠状动脉造影和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的安全性和有效性:采用倾向评分法的单中心前瞻性队列研究。
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022 Mar 2;22(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s12872-022-02518-8.
2
Body Mass Index and Association With Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Stable Coronary Heart Disease - A STABILITY Substudy.体重指数与稳定性冠心病患者心血管结局的关系 - STABILITY 亚研究。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Feb;11(3):e023667. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.023667. Epub 2022 Jan 21.
3
冠状动脉造影中桡动脉远端入路与传统桡动脉入路的比较
Cureus. 2023 Sep 12;15(9):e45081. doi: 10.7759/cureus.45081. eCollection 2023 Sep.
Distal radial artery approach for endovascular therapy.
桡动脉远端入路用于血管内治疗。
Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2022 Jul;37(3):533-537. doi: 10.1007/s12928-021-00801-7. Epub 2021 Aug 18.
4
Distal Transradial Access in Anatomical Snuffbox for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: An Updated Meta-Analysis.经桡动脉远端入路在前臂解剖鼻烟窝行冠状动脉造影及介入治疗的应用:一项更新的荟萃分析。
J Interv Cardiol. 2021 Jul 22;2021:7099044. doi: 10.1155/2021/7099044. eCollection 2021.
5
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.
6
Distal snuffbox versus conventional radial artery access: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.鼻烟窝远端与传统桡动脉入路:一项更新的系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Vasc Access. 2022 Jul;23(4):653-659. doi: 10.1177/11297298211005256. Epub 2021 Mar 31.
7
Distal Radial Artery Approach to Prevent Radial Artery Occlusion Trial.桡动脉远端入路预防桡动脉闭塞试验。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Feb 22;14(4):378-385. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.013.
8
Feasibility and Safety of the Distal Transradial Artery for Coronary Diagnostic or Interventional Catheterization.经桡动脉远端入路行冠状动脉诊断或介入治疗的可行性和安全性。
J Interv Cardiol. 2020 Dec 9;2020:4794838. doi: 10.1155/2020/4794838. eCollection 2020.
9
Comparison of Distal Transradial Access in Anatomic Snuffbox Versus Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography.经桡动脉解剖鼻烟窝入路与经桡动脉入路行冠状动脉造影的比较。
Heart Surg Forum. 2020 Jun 12;23(4):E407-E410. doi: 10.1532/hsf.3041.
10
The Visual Analogue Scale Versus Numerical Rating Scale in Measuring Pain Severity and Predicting Disability in Low Back Pain.视觉模拟评分法与数字评分法在测量腰痛疼痛严重程度和预测残疾方面的比较。
J Clin Rheumatol. 2021 Oct 1;27(7):282-285. doi: 10.1097/RHU.0000000000001320.