LPYP20压迫止血器和Medplus桡动脉止血带在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后的止血效果对比

Comparison of LPYP20 compressor and Medplus radial artery tourniquet in radial percutaenous coronary intervention

目的比较LPYP20压迫止血器和Medplus桡动脉止血带在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后桡动脉止血中的安全性、有效性及优缺点。方法经桡动脉行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者116例,电脑数字随机法分成两组,其中64例采用LPYP20压迫止血器,52例采用Medplus桡动脉止血带。观察两组术后止血情况、桡动脉闭塞及局部并发症情况并进行对比。结果两组术后均能成功止血。两组在出血及桡动脉闭塞方面比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);在包扎远端肿胀、麻木、皮肤破损方面,Medplus桡动脉止血带优于LPYP20压迫止血器[17.3%(9/52)vs.35.9%(23/64),P<0.05;13.5%(7/52)vs.32.8%(21/64),P<0.05;1.9%(1/52)vs.12.5%(8/64),P<0.05]。结论两种压迫器均能成功达到止血目的 ,但Medplus桡动脉止血带对周围组织压迫更少,对皮肤损伤更小。

Objectives To compare the safety, validity and superiority between LPYP20 radial artery compressor and Medplus radial artery tourniquet in percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Methods We randomly divided 116 patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty into two groups. Sixty four patients were included in LPYP20 group,and 52 in Medplus group. We compared the capacity of hemostasia and complications between the two groups. Results The immediate success rate of the 2 groups were 100%. There was no significant difference on hemorrhage and radial occlusion between the 2 groups （P〉0.05）. There were significant differences in distal swelling, numbness and skin injuries between the 2 groups[ 17.3% （9/52） vs. 35.9% （23/64）,P〈0.05; 13.5% （7/52） vs. 32.8% （21/64）,P〈0.05; 1.9% （1/52） vs. 12.5% （8/64）,P〈0.05]. Conclusions Two kinds of radial artery compressor are safe and effective in patients with the transradial approach, and the Medplus radial artery tourniquet is better because of smaller area compression and less skin injuries.