神经介入术后止血方法的临床分析

Clinical efficacy of hemostasis after interventional neuroradiology procedures

目的探讨神经介入术后应用动脉压迫器、血管封堵器及血管缝合器的止血效果。方法 890例神经介入治疗术后患者平均随机分为3组:动脉压迫器组、血管封堵器组及血管缝合器止血组,观察股动脉穿刺部位的止血时间、制动时间、创口处理时间及并发症等。结果血管缝合器与动脉压迫器相比止血时间、制动时间、创口处理时间均缩短,动脉压迫器组止血时间(20.96±2.47)min,血管缝合器止血时间(3.63±1.02)min,2组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。血管缝合器与血管封堵器相比止血时间、制动时间、创口处理时间均缩短,血管缝合器创口处理时间(4.68±0.67)min,血管封堵器创口处理时间(5.85±0.97)min,2组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论血管缝合器用于神经介入诊疗术后并发症较少、止血效果较好、舒适度较高。

Objective To investigate the efficacy of artery compression device, vascular closure device （ Angio-seal ） and arterial blood vessel suture instrument （ Perclose proGlide ） on hemostasis after interventional neuroradiology. Method A total of ninety patients were randomly divided into the arterial compression group, vascular closure device group and the arterial blood vessel suture instrument group, after interventional treatment.The hemostatic time, braking time, wound treatment time and complications of the femoral artery puncture site were observed. Results The bleeding time, braking time, wound treatment time of arterial blood vessel suture instrument group was shorter than arterial compression device group, the bleeding time of artery compression group （ 20.96±2.47 ） min, the bleeding time of arterial blood vessel suture instrument （ 3.63±1.02 ） min, there was significant difference among the two groups （ P〈0.05 ） . the bleeding time, braking time, wound treatment time of arterial blood vessel suture instrument group was shorter than vascular closure device group, wound processing time of arterial blood vessel suture instrument group （ 4.68±0.67 ） rain, wound processing time of vascular closure device group （ 5.85±0.97 ） min, there was significant difference among the two groups （ P〈0.05 ） . Conelusion The use of arterial blood vessel suture instrument in patients undergoing interventional neuroradiology results in fewer complications, better postoperative hemostatic effect, higher comfort degree.