经股动脉介入术后不同包扎止血方法的比较研究

Comparative study of different bandaging and hemostnsis methods after percutaneons coronary intervention through femoral artery

目的评价改良的敷料绷带加压包扎方法处理经股动脉介入术后股动脉穿刺点的安全性及优越性。方法将648例经股动脉介入诊疗患者随机分为改良组224例、传统组213例和止血器组211例，3组分别采用改良的敷料绷带加压包扎法、传统的压迫止血加压包扎法和动脉压迫止血器止血法。观察3组的徒手压迫时间、止血费用、制动时间及并发症的发生情况。结果3组在制动时间及局部血管并发症的发生率方面比较无显著差异；改良组和止血器组较传统组减少了徒手压迫时间，传统组和改良组较止血器组降低了患者的止血费用。结论改良的敷料绷带加压包扎方法减少了徒手压迫时间，同时降低了患者的止血费用，值得临床推广。

Objective To evaluate the safety and superiority of dressings and bandage compression method for patients after percutaneous coronary intervention through femoral artery. Methods A total of 648 patients who received pereutaneous coronary intervention through femoral artery were randomly divided into three groups： the modified group （224 cases）, the routine group （213 cases） and the haemostat group （211 cases）, they each adopted modified dressings and bandage compression method, the traditional op- pression hemostatic method, and arterial oppression with hemostat method. The unarmed oppression time, expenditure, braking time, and complications were observed and analyzed statistically. Results There was no significant difference in braking time and local vascular complications of the three groups. Compared with the routine group, the modified group reduced the unarmed oppression time and the medical staffs＇ workload; compared with the hemostat group, it reduced the expenditure. Conclusions Improved dress- ings and bandage compression method can reduce the unarmed oppression time and expenditure, it is an ideal local hemostasis method for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention through femoral artery, and is worthy of clinical application.