Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Añadir filtros








Intervalo de año
1.
Clinics ; 72(1): 1-4, Jan. 2017. tab
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS | ID: biblio-840038

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To compare the advantages and disadvantages of emergency percutaneous coronary intervention through the left radial artery with those of emergency percutaneous coronary intervention through the femoral artery. METHODS: A total of 206 patients with acute myocardial infarction who required emergency percutaneous coronary intervention and were admitted to our hospital between January 2011 and August 2013 were divided into the following two groups: a group that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention through the left radial artery and a group that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention through the femoral artery. The times required for angiographic catheter and guiding catheter placement, the success rate of the procedure and the incidence of vascular complications in the two groups were observed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in catheter placement time or the ultimate success rate of the procedure between the two groups. However, the left radial artery group showed a significantly lower incidence of vascular complications than the femoral artery group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention through the left radial artery is associated with less vascular complications than emergency percutaneous coronary intervention through the femoral artery and is thus potentially advantageous for patients.


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tratamiento de Urgencia , Arteria Femoral , Infarto del Miocardio/cirugía , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/métodos , Arteria Radial , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Análisis de Supervivencia , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA