股动脉穿刺术后Angioseal血管封堵与压迫止血的对比

Comparison of Angioseal closure device with manual compression

目的 评价Angioseal封堵器在脑血管介入经皮股动脉穿刺术后止血的实用性及安全性.方法 选择行脑血管造影或介入治疗的病例128例,其中脑血管造影93例,介入治疗35例.按止血方法 不同分为单纯压迫组（83例）和血管封堵组（45例）.结果 脑血管造影：血管封堵组止血时间为（1.8±0.8）min,下肢制动时间为（3.8.±0.8）h,明显短于单纯压迫组的（20.2.±9.4）min和（19.4 ±2.2）h（P＜0.01）.介入治疗：血管封堵组止血时间为（2.0±1.1）min,下肢制动时间为（4.3±1.5）h,亦明显短于单纯压迫组的（24.5±10.3）min和（24.3±3.2）h（P＜0.01）.单纯压迫组术后并发症发生率,如渗血、血肿、术后皮肤溃破、水疱发生率等,明显高于血管封堵组（P＜0.01）.结论 Angioseal封堵器止血简便、实用、安全,值得临床应用.

Objective To assess the safety and efficiency of Angioseal device in patients undergoing percutaneous femoral artery puncture in brain angiograph or interventional therapy. Methods A prospective trial was carried out in 128 patients undergoing brain angiograph and interventional therapy,in which 93undergoing brain angiography and 35 interventionsl therapy. All patients were divided into pure compression group by manual compression （83 cases） and vascular blocking group by Angioseal device （45 cases）according to different hemostatic measures. Results In angiography, hemostasis time of vascular blocking group and pure compression group was （1.8 ±0.8） min and（20.2 ±9.4） min （P＜0.01 ）,ambulation time was （3.8 ± 0.8） h and （19.4 ± 2.2） h （P ＜ 0.01）. In interventional therapy,hemostasis time of vascular blocking group and pure compression group was （2.0 ± 1.1） min and （24.5 ± 10.3） min （P ＜ 0.01）, ambulation time was （4.3 ± 1.5） h and （24.3 ± 3.2） h （P＜ 0.01）. Pure compression group had higher complication rate （such as bleeding,hematoma,skin ulceration and blister） than vascular blocking group （P＜0.01）.Conclusion Angioseal closure device is safe, efficient and easy to use.