[1]郭俊,徐帝非,沈下贤,等.两类桡动脉压迫止血器临床应用效果分析[J].介入放射学杂志,2016,(07):577-580.
　effectGUO Jun,XU Di-fei,SHEN Xia-xian,et al.The application of two kinds of radial artery compression hemostasis device: analysis of their clinical[J].journal interventional radiology,2016,(07):577-580.
点击复制

两类桡动脉压迫止血器临床应用效果分析 ()

PDF下载中关闭

分享到：

《介入放射学杂志》[ISSN:1008-794X/CN:31-1796/R]

卷:
期数:
2016年07期
页码:
577-580
栏目:
心脏介入
出版日期:
2016-07-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
The application of two kinds of radial artery compression hemostasis device: analysis of their clinical
作者:
郭俊; 徐帝非; 沈下贤; 李国然; 赵仙先
Author(s):
effectGUO Jun;  XU Di-fei;  SHEN Xia-xian;  LI Guo-ran;  ZHAO Xian-xian
Department of Cardiology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China
关键词:
【关键词】桡动脉入路;  压迫止血器;  血管并发症;  止血
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
【摘要】目的比较旋钮式压迫止血器和气囊式压迫止血器在桡动脉途径介入治疗术中的临床应用效果。 方法回顾性分析2015年2月至9月接受冠状动脉介入治疗的186例患者临床资料。其中105例患者选用旋钮式压迫止血器，81例患者选用气囊式压迫止血器，比较两组患者术后临床特征及血管并发症发生情况。根据术后穿刺点出血情况将患者分为出血组和不出血组，比较两组患者临床特点。 结果使用气囊式压迫止血器患者术后手部肿胀率(P=0.001)、疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS，P=0.02)均明显低于使用旋钮式压迫止血器患者；两者术后出血比例未见明显差异(17.3%对14.3%，P=0.55)。出血组患者活化部分凝血活酶时间(APTT，P=0.001)、国际标准化比值(INR，P=0.001)、术后使用低分子肝素或替罗非班比例(P=0.002)及疼痛VAS评分(P=0.001)均高于不出血组患者，诊断性造影比例低于不出血组患者(P=0.03)。 结论旋钮式压迫止血器和气囊式压迫止血器止血效果相当，气囊式压迫止血器在舒适度及肿胀率方面优于旋钮式压迫止血器。术后穿刺点是否出血与压迫止血器类型无关，与患者APTT、INR、术后抗凝药物使用情况及是否植入支架相关。


参考文献/References:

 

［1］Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai GG, De Benedictis ML, et al. Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures. Systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials［J］. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004, 44: 349-356.

［2］Yang Q, Zhou YJ, Nie B, et al. Effects of bandage compression and the specific radial hemostasis in patients undergoing transradial coronary intervention［J］. Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi, 2010, 38: 720-723.

［3］Cong X, Huang Z, Wu J, et al. Randomized comparison of 3 hemostasis techniques after transradial coronary intervention［J］. J Cardiovasc Nurs, 2015［Epub ahead of print］

［4］Fech JC, Welsh R, Hegadoren K, et al. Caring for the radial artery post-angiogram: a pilot study on a comparison of three methods of compression［J］. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs, 2012, 11: 44-50.

［5］Cheng KY, Chair SY, Choi KC. Access site complications and puncture site pain following transradial coronary procedures: a correlational study［J］. Int J Nurs Stud, 2013, 50: 1304-1313.

［6］陈爱民， 俞子东， 俞海风. TR Band桡动脉压迫止血装置在老年患者选择性冠状动脉造影中的应用价值［J］. 心电与循环， 2012， 31： 271-272.

［7］张艳， 张小天， 唐莲， 等. 改良冠状动脉介入术患者桡动脉压迫止血器解除方法的临床效果研究［J］. 中华保健医学杂志， 2014， 16： 457-459.

［8］Chatelain P, Arceo A, Rombaut E, et al. New device for compression of the radial artery after diagnostic and interventional cardiac procedures［J］. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn, 1997, 40: 297-300.

［9］Bertrand OF, Bernat I. Radial artery occlusion:still the Achilles heel of transradial approach or is it［J］. Coron Artery Dis, 2015, 26: 97-98.

［10］Bernat I, Bertrand OF, Rokyta R, et al. Efficacy and safety of transient ulnar artery compression to recanalize acue radial artery occlusion after transradial catheterization［J］. Am J Cardiol, 2011, 107: 1698-1701.

［11］Pristipino C, Pelliccia F, Granatelli A, et al. Comparison of access-related bleeding complications in women versus men undergoing percutaneous coronary catheterization using the radial versus femoral artery［J］. Am J Cardiol, 2007, 99: 1216-1221.

 

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
(收稿日期：2015-10-24)


(本文编辑：边佶)
更新日期/Last Update: 2016-07-18