Femoquick动脉压迫止血器对经股动脉介入术后的临床应用

Clinical Utility of Domestic Femoquick Artery Compressor After Percutaneous Intervention Via Femoral Artery

目的评价Femoquick动脉压迫止血器对于经股动脉介入术后应用的有效性和安全性。方法纳入我院接受经股动脉介入治疗的134例患者,其中采用Femoquick动脉压迫止血器的67例患者作为试验组,采用YM-Gu动脉压迫止血器的67名患者作为对照组,比较两组患者术后止血时间、下肢制动时间、渗血、血肿、假性动脉瘤发生率、医用黏胶相关性皮肤损伤以及患者不舒适感发生率。结果两组患者在止血时间和肢体制动时间方面差异无统计学意义[(1.8±0.5) min比(2.1±1.4) min、(3.8±1.2) h比(4.0±0.6) h,均P> 0.05],两组患者在术后发生渗血、血肿以及假性动脉瘤发生率方面,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但在MARSI发生率和患者不舒适感方面,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论Femoquick动脉压迫止血器不仅具有良好的止血效果,同时可以降低患者MARSI损伤的发生,提高患者的舒适度,值得临床推广使用。

Objective To assess efficacy and safety of domestic Femoquick artery compressor for percutaneous intervention by femoral approaches.Methods 134 patients who received interventional treatment via femoral access in our hospital were selected.67 people in test group( TG) used Femoquick compression hemostatic device,and 67 people in control group( CG) used YM-Gu artery compression hemostatic device.Postoperative hemostasis time,lower limb immobilization time,incidence of bleeding,hemorrhage,hematoma,pseudoaneurysm,medical adhesive-related skin injury and patient discomfort were compared after surgery.Results There were no significant difference between two groups in hemostasis and limb immobilization time [( 1. 8±0. 5) min vs.( 2. 1±1. 4) min、( 3. 8±1. 2) h vs.( 4. 0±0. 6) h,P>0. 05].Rates of major complications rates were similar between two groups( P>0. 05).There were statistically significant differences between two groups in terms of MARSI rate and patient discomfort( P<0. 05).Conclusion Femoquick arterial compression not only has a good hemostatic effect,but also could reduce MARSI injury and improve comfort.It is worth applying in practice.