A comparative study on nursing outcomes of distal radial artery puncture versus traditional radial artery puncture in interventional medicine
介入科远桡与桡动脉穿刺护理效果对比研究

摘要

本文对比介入科远桡动脉穿刺与传统桡动脉穿刺的临床护理效果，为优化介入治疗穿刺护理方案提供循证依据。选取本院介入科2025年6月-2025年8月接收的介入治疗患者100例，采用随机数字表法分为观察组（远桡动脉穿刺）和对照组（传统桡动脉穿刺），每组各50例。两组均由同一组医护团队实施穿刺操作及标准化护理，结果显示，观察组首次穿刺成功率为84%，对照组为88%，两组差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；观察组穿刺时间（2.38±0.65）min、压迫止血时间（1.75±0.23）h、手术操作时间（16.04±3.52）min、住院时间（3.7±0.95）天，均显著短于对照组的（3.86±1.32）min、（6.36±0.87）h、（19.9±5.16）min、（4.42±0.78）天，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。观察组并发症发生率为4%（2例），显著低于对照组的12%（6例）。观察组患者舒适度评分（8.69±0.62）分，高于对照组的（7.67±0.58）分，差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。因此，远桡动脉穿刺在介入治疗中具有穿刺定位精准、压迫止血时间短、术后恢复快、并发症发生率低及患者舒适度高的优势，且穿刺成功率与传统桡动脉穿刺相当，配合标准化护理可进一步提升临床疗效，值得在介入科临床推广应用。

Abstract

This paper compares the clinical nursing outcomes of distal radial artery puncture with traditional radial artery puncture in interventional medicine, aiming to provide evidence-based support for optimizing puncture nursing protocols. A total of 100 patients undergoing interventional treatment at our hospital's Department of Interventional Medicine from June to August 2025 were selected and divided into an observation group (distal radial artery puncture) and a control group (traditional radial artery puncture) using a random number table method, with 50 cases in each group. Both groups received puncture procedures and standardized nursing care performed by the same medical team. The results showed that the first-time puncture success rate was 84% in the observation group and 88% in the control group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The observation group had significantly shorter puncture time (2.38±0.65 minutes), compression hemostasis time (1.75±0.23 hours), surgical operation time (16.04±3.52 minutes), and hospital stay (3.7±0.95 days) compared to the control group's (3.86±1.32 minutes), (6.36±0.87 hours), (19.9±5.16 minutes), and (4.42±0.78 days), respectively, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). The complication occurrence rate in the observation group was 4% (2 cases), which was significantly lower than the 12% (6 cases) in the control group. The patient comfort score in the observation group was (8.69±0.62) points, higher than the (7.67±0.58) points in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). Therefore, distal radial artery puncture offers advantages in interventional treatment, including precise puncture localization, short compression hemostasis time, rapid postoperative recovery, low complication occurrence rate, and high patient comfort, with a puncture success rate comparable to traditional radial artery puncture. Combined with standardized nursing care, it can further enhance clinical efficacy and is worthy of promotion and application in clinical practice in the Department of Interventional Medicine.