股动脉穿刺术后三种止血方法的效果比较

THE COMPARISON OF THREE KINDS OF HEMOSTASIS FOR FEMORAL ARTERY PUNCTURE PROCEDURE

目的:对股动脉穿刺术后三种止血的方法进行效果比较,探讨怎样减少外周血管出血并发症的发生。方法:收集156例股动脉穿刺术后病例的资料,其中,48例采用AngiolinkTM血管缝合器止血,50例采用普通绷带止血,58例采用CobanTM自粘式绷带止血。对三种方法的效果进行比较。结果:AngiolinkTM血管缝合器止血组,外周血管出血并发症的发生率为2.1%,低于采用CobanTM自粘式绷带止血组(2.1%vs9.0%,P<0.05)和普通绷带止血组(2.1%vs24%,P<0.01)。CobanTM自粘式绷带止血组比普通绷带止血组明显降低,外周围血管出血并发症率(9.0%vs24%,P<0.05)。结论:AngiolinkTM血管缝合器用于股动脉穿刺术后止血,能明显的减少外周血管并发症的发生,但对那些无力支付昂贵血管缝合器的患者,选用CobanTM自粘式绷带止血,也是一个好的替代方法。

Objective： To explore the hemostasis method for decreasing peripheral vascular bleeding complications after femoral artery puncture procedure. Methods： 156 patients accepted cornary artary invasive procedure via femord artery punture were enrolled, including AngiolinkTM vascular closure device hemostasis group 48 cases, CobonTM cohesive and elastic restraining bandage hemostasis group 58 cases and common bandage hemostasis group 50 cases. The difference of peripheral vascular bleeding complications was observed. Results： The bleeding complication rate in vascular closure device hemostasis group was 2.1%, significantly lower than that of the cohesive and elastic restraining bandage hemostasis group （2.1% vs 9.0%, P〈0.05） and the common bandage hemostasis group （2.1% vs 24%, P〈0.01）.Compared with the common bandage hemostasis group,cohesive and elastic restraining bandage could also significantly decrease the peripheral vascular bleeding complication rate （9.0% vs 24%, P〈0.05）. Conclusion： Using AngiolinkTM vascular closure device was much better than using bandage for femoral artery hemostasis, but to those who couldn＇t afford the expensive vascular closure device, the CobanTM cohesive and elastic restraining bandage was also a good substitution method.