血管闭合器在再次经股动脉途径主动脉腔内修复术中的临床疗效和安全性

Clinical efficacy and safety of endovascular closure device in patients undergoing another transarterial thoracic aortic repair

目的探讨Pro-Glide血管闭合装置在再次经股动脉途径行主动脉腔内修复术的患者中的临床使用疗效和安全性。方法回顾性分析2016年1月1日~2021年1月1日入解放军西部战区总医院心血管外科的53例经股动脉入路血管内修复术患者,设为实验组。根据是否有经股动脉介入手术史,将患者分为既往无经股动脉入路手术史患者(A组,n=31)和既往有经股动脉入路手术史的患者组(B组,n=22)。同时以2010年1月~2021年1月期间采用腹股沟切口经股动脉入路手术患者为对照组(C组,n=33)。结果两个实验组与对照组间的年龄、性别构成等临床特征对比无显著性差异。实验组A组和B组各有1例术中转为切开缝合血管穿刺点。三组间术后穿刺处股动脉直径(mm)、术中使用穿刺鞘直径(F)、手术时间(min)、住院时间(d)的数据对比,均无统计学差异。结论对需再次进行股动脉入路的患者来说,Pro-Glide装置是一种微创、安全、有效的血管闭合的方法。

AIM To investigate the efficacy and safety of Proglide vascular closure device in patients undergoing another endovascular aortic repair via femoral artery(TEVAR).METHODS Fifty-three patients with endovascular repair via femoral artery approach from January 1,2016 to January 1,2021 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed as the study group,and 33 patients with femoral artery repair through inguinal incision from January 2010 to January 2021 were selected as the control group.The patients in the study group were divided into experimental group A and group experimental B according to whether or not the patients were re-intervened by femoral artery.RESULTS There was no significant difference in age,gender and other clinical characteristics between the two experimental groups and control group.Each of the two experimental groups had 1 case that was converted to suture puncture point.There was no significant difference in the diameter of femoral artery(mm),diameter of puncture sheath(f),operation time(min)and hospital stay(d)between the three groups.CONCLUSION Proglide device is a minimally invasive,safe and effective method for vascular closure in patients who need to undergo another femoral artery approach.