{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028832630098452883, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014064697609001406, 'mean_word_length': 5.7440758293838865, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Clinical studies on different coronary artery interventional therapies through femoral artery or radial artery approaches].

OBJECTIVE
To compare the clinical efficacies regarding femoral artery or radial artery approaches on coronary artery interventional therapies.


METHODS
360 patients were randomly divided into intervention group via femoral artery (TFI) or transradial coronary intervention (TRI) group. Postoperative observation on the two said groups of patients with vascular lesion characteristics, feasibility factors (success rate of interventional therapy puncture, time of operation and hospitalization) and complications, were made.


RESULTS
There were no significant differences between the two groups on the characteristics of vascular lesion (P>0.05). Success rates of the two groups were 97.78% and 96.67% respectively. The differences on success rate, time of operation were not statistically significant (P>0.05) while the average time of puncture, the mean duration of hospitalization and the rates of complications were significantly different (P<0.05).


CONCLUSION
The two methods under comparison had similar success rate and feasibility. However, the complications related to radial artery interventional therapy were much less than the femoral artery interventional therapy. As having better safety, radial artery interventional therapy seemed to have applicable value on clinical practice.