冠脉介入检查治疗后2种包扎方法的比较

Comparative study of two bandaging methods after percutaneous coronary intervention

目的评价2种包扎方法在冠脉介入检查治疗后止血的安全性和有效性。方法进行冠脉介入检查治疗的122例患者,随机分为人工压迫包扎组(61例)和直接包扎组(61例),观察住院期间出血性并发症发生率和拔管压迫时间。结果人工压迫包扎组61例患者术后无需要输血的并发症发生,1例发生直径≥5cm的血肿,2例发生假性动脉瘤,总出血并发症为3例,发生率为4.9%;直接包扎组61例患者术后1例发生大出血,需要重新包扎并输血治疗,2例发生直径≥5cm的血肿,1例发生假性动脉瘤,总出血并发症为4例,发生率为6.6%;2组患者在各出血性并发症比较,差异均无显著意义(P>0.05),而2组在术后拔管压迫时间方面比较,分别为(26.0±4.3)min和(8.0±2.4)min,差异有显著意义(P<0.05)。结论直接包扎法较人工压迫法不增加出血并发症,可缩短拔管压迫时间。

Objective To evaluated the safety and efficacy of the two bandaging methods in hemostasis after percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods 122 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly divided into two groups,61 patients in artificial compression bandaging group and the other 61 patients in direct bandaging group. The incidence of bleeding complications and decannulation compression time were observed in both groups.Results After operation there was no patient who had complication that needed blood transfusion in artificial compression bandaging group,1 patient had hematoma(≥5 cm),2 patients had pseudoaneurysm,total hemorrhagic complication was 3 cases and the incidence was 4.9%.In direct bandaging group 1 patient had severe hemorrhage who required blood transfusion and bandaging again,2 patients had hematoma(≥5 cm),1 patient had pseudoaneurysm,total hemorrhagic complication was 4 cases and the incidence was 6.6%.There was no significant difference in major bleeding complication between two groups(P>0.05),however,there was a significant difference in decannulation compression time between two groups (26.0 min±4.3 min vs 8.0 min±2.4 min,P<0.05).Conclusion The direct compression enswathement can shorten compression times,which doesn't increase hemorrhagic complication.