论文部分内容阅读
[目的]对比测定经股动脉和桡动脉路入途径行冠脉造影时患者的受照剂量,为心血管介入辐射防护提供参考。[方法]在2010年1月～2011年1月,男性患者60例行冠脉造影,按其血管途径分为桡动脉组30例和股动脉组30例,桡动脉途径组患者行Allen’s试验呈阳性,选右桡动脉入径,股动脉途径组按常规方法操作,用穿透电离室型剂量测量系统,对不同路入途径行冠状动脉介入时患者辐射剂量进行了测量。所得数据资料,采用SPSS10.0软件进行统计学分析,P﹤0.05为差异有统计学意义。[结果]两组造影途径的患者体重、胸部体厚、透视时间和曝光帧数没有明显差异,但患者累积剂量桡动脉组(825±338mGy)明显高于股动脉组(541±204mGy),两组结果进行比较,差异有统计学意义(P﹤0.05)。[结论]桡动脉途径因为成功率高、并发症少成为冠心病介入治疗的首选途径同时,患者所接受的辐射剂量较大,应该采取有效措施来加强对患者的辐射防护。
[Objective] To compare the dose of patients undergoing coronary angiography through the femoral artery and radial artery, and to provide reference for the radiation protection of cardiovascular intervention. [Methods] From January 2010 to January 2011, 60 male patients underwent coronary angiography. According to their vascular pathways, they were divided into radial artery group (30 cases) and femoral artery group (30 cases). Patients in the radial artery group underwent Allen’s test Positive, right radial artery diameter selection, femoral artery access group routine operation, with ionizing chamber-based dose measurement system, the different ways of coronary intervention patients radiation dose was measured. The data obtained, using SPSS10.0 software for statistical analysis, P <0.05 for the difference was statistically significant. [Results] There was no significant difference in body weight, thoracic body thickness, fluoroscopy time and exposure frame between the two groups. However, the cumulative dose of radial artery group (825 ± 338mGy) was significantly higher than that of femoral artery group (541 ± 204mGy) The results were compared, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). [Conclusion] Because of the high success rate and less complication of radial artery route, it is the first choice of interventional therapy for coronary heart disease. At the same time, patients should receive more radiation dose and should take effective measures to enhance radiation protection to patients.