经股动脉途径冠脉造影和介入术后Angio-Seal血管封堵器的应用

Application of Angio-Seal vascular closure device following coronary angiograph and percutaneous coronary intervention by way of femoral artery

目的:评估经股动脉冠状动脉造影和介入治疗术后适用Angio-Seal血管封堵器的安全性及有效性。方法:根据术后止血方式的不同,将582例经股动脉途径行冠状动脉造影(coronary angiograph,CAG)和介入治疗(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)术后的患者分为A组(220例)和B组(362例)。A组患者使用Angio-Seal血管封堵器止血,B组患者采用手工压迫股动脉止血,对两组患者的止血成功率,出血并发症及迷走反射的发生率进行比较。结果:两组患者比较,在止血成功率、出血并发症的发生率上无明显差异,但迷走反射的发生率有显著差异。结论:Angio-Seal血管封堵器在止血成功率及出血并发症上并不优于传统手工压迫止血法,同时其价格较昂贵,因此在选择病例时需非常谨慎,而不能作为经股动脉途径冠脉诊疗术后的常规止血法。

Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the application of Anglo-Seal vascular closure device （VCD） following coronary angiograph （CAG） and percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） by way of femoral artery. Methods According to the methods used for hemostasis following CAG and PCI, 582 patients were divided into two groups （Group A n = 220, Group B n = 362）. Patients in Group A received VCD for hemostasis, while patients in group B received manual compression （MC）. The successful rate of hemostasis, the incidence of hemorrhagic complications and vasovagal reflex in the two groups were compared. Results There were no significant differences in the successful rate of hemostasis and the incidence of hemorrhagic complications, but there was significant difference in vasovagal reflex between the two groups. Conclusions The VCD did not superior to MC in the the successful rate of hemostasis and the incidence of hemorrhagic complications, but its price is high. Thus, VCD could not be a routine method for hemostasis after CAG and PCI by way of femoral artery.