吴信,王发辉,周博,吕文杰,杨丹
WU Xin,WANG Fahui,ZHOU Bo,LV Wenjie,YANG Dan

• 1:贵州医科大学附院外科学教研室
• 2:贵州医科大学

摘要(Abstract)：

目的:比较经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)术后3种不同压迫止血方法的临床疗效。方法:选择行PCI的患者181例,根据术后压迫止血方式不同分为A组(人工压迫止血法,n=58)、B组(YM-GU-动脉压迫止血器,n=61)和C组(股动脉气囊压迫止血器,n=62),比较3组患者临床基础情况、术后止血时间、肢体制动时间、舒适度和并发症。结果:3组患者的临床基础情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);3组患者止血操作时间及肢体制动时间两两比较,A组明显长于B组和C组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);术后并发症的发生率,A组和C组明显低于B组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);术后舒适度不满意的发生率,A组和B组明显高于C组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:股动脉气囊压迫止血疗效可靠,压力值易调控。
Objective: To compare clinical curative effect of three different methods of oppression hemostasis after percutaneous coronary intervention( PCI) operation. Methods: 181 patients in our hospital undergoing PCI operation were divided into group A( artificial oppression hemostasis,n = 58),group B( YM-GU hemostasis,n = 61),and group C( femoral artery balloon compression hemostasis,n = 62). The differences in clinical basic situation,postoperative hemostasis time,limb braking time,patient comfort and complications among these three groups were compared in statistic methods. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in clinical basic situation of patients between three groups( P > 0. 05). Compared with group B and C,in group A the hemostasis time and limb braking time were longer and differences were statistically significant( P < 0. 01). The incidence of postoperative complications in group A and group C were significantly lower than that in group B( P <0. 01). The incidence rate of dissatisfaction for postoperative comfort in group A and B was higher than that in group C( P < 0. 01). Conclusion: Femoral artery balloon compression hemostasis effect is reliable,the pressure value is easy to control,and worthy of clinical application.

关键词(KeyWords)： 血管成形术,经腔,经皮冠状动脉;止血技术;YM-GU-动脉压迫止血器;气囊压迫止血器
angioplasty,transluminal,percutaneous coronary;hemostasis techniques;YM-GU artery compression hemostasis device;femoral artery balloon compression hemostasis device

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 大学生创新创业训练项目(国家级,021203102)

作者(Author): 吴信,王发辉,周博,吕文杰,杨丹
WU Xin,WANG Fahui,ZHOU Bo,LV Wenjie,YANG Dan

DOI: 10.19367/j.cnki.1000-2707.2016.05.021

参考文献(References)：

• [1]Kobrossi S,Tamim H,Dakik HA.Vascular complications of early(3h)vs standard(6h)ambulation post-cardiac catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention from the femoral artery[J].Int J Cardiol,2014(3):1067-1069.
• [2]刘刚,邓来林,阮政文.经桡动脉和股动脉路径行冠状动脉介入诊治的比较分析[J].检验医学与临床,2010(13):1337-1338.
• [3]陈玲,赵宗欢,刘文娟.等.新型股动脉穿刺点制动装置设计与应用[J].护理研究,2014(29):29.
• [4]孙晓霞,厉志洪,周芸.动脉压迫止血气囊的临床应用及压力选择[J].中华护理杂志,2005(1):69.
• [5]杨瑾,潘慧,陆晨辉,等.动脉溶栓术后动脉压迫器止血引起皮下血肿的原因及护理策略[J].中华介入放射学电子杂志,2013(2):132-134.
• [6]Michael SL,Bob A,Sunil VR,et al.Minimizing femoral artery access complications during percutaneous coronary intervention:a comprehensive review[J].Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions,2014(1):62-69.
• [7]Jolly SS,Amlani S,Hamon M,et al.Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events:a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials[J].Am Heart,2009(157):132-140.
• [8]Ambrosio,Pitney,Lau,et al.Efficacy of manual compression versus closure devices in achieving femoral artery haemostasis after percutaneous coronary intervention[J].Heart lung and circulation,2010(2):129.
• [9]Kamusella P,Wissgott C,Andresen R.Use of a percutaneous suture-mediated closure system after 6-8F transfemoral approaches:Results for 2200 Patients[J].Rofo,2012(4):311-315.
• [10]Stegemann E,Hoffmann R,Marso S,et al.The frequency of vascular complications associated with the use of vascular closure devices varies by indication for cardiac catheterization[J].Clin Res Cardiol,2011(100):789-795.

文章评论(Comment)：