摘要
目的:评价冠状动脉造影和介入治疗后Perclose血管缝合器止血的临床安全性。方法:对264例接受冠状动脉造影或支架术患者,在术后使用血管缝合器Perclose 132例(Perclose组)或人工压迫止血132例(人工组)作股动脉穿刺部位止血。比较2组的止血时间、制动时间和血管并发症发生率。结果:Perclose组显著缩短止血时间和制动时间(P<0.01),但其与人工组的血管并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(5.3%∶6.1%,P>0.05)。结论:使用Perclose血管缝合器能显著缩短止血时间和制动时间,但不减少股动脉穿刺并发症的发生。
Objective:To assess the safety ot arteriotomy closure device ( Perclose ) in patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary interventions, Method:Two hundred and sixty four patients were randomly allocated to hemostatic treatment with Perelose device ( Perclose group, n = 132 ) or by manual compression (manual group, n = 132 ) after coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary interventions. Time to achievement of hemostasis, braking time and vascular complications were compared between the two groups. Resuit:Both time to achievement of hemostasis and braking time were significantly reduced in the Perclose group ( P〈0. 01), but the incidence of vascular complications was similar between Perclose group and manual group (5.3 % : 6.1%, P〉0.05). Conclusion: Arteriotomy closure device Perclose can achieve hemostasis and ambulation faster than manual compression, but it may not decrease vascular complications at the access site.
出处
《临床心血管病杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2006年第6期339-340,共2页
Journal of Clinical Cardiology
关键词
冠状动脉造影
血管缝合器
止血
并发症
Coronary angiography
Arterial closure devices
Hemostasis
Complications