摘要
目的评价经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗后,新型血管闭合器Easy stasis的临床应用效果和安全性。方法共208例经股动脉行冠状动脉介入治疗患者,分为3组,A组(n=68)、B组(n=70)分别使用Easy stasis和Angio-Seal闭合器进行股动脉穿刺点止血,c组(n=70)采用徒手压迫法止血,观察3组患者止血时间、卧床制动时间以及并发症的情况。结果A组、B组及C组的止血成功率分别为97.1%,94.3%,100%,差异无统计学意义,P>0.05;止血时间分别为(1.8±1.2)min、(2.0±1.6)min和(17.9±4.3)min,卧床制动时间分别为(4.7±0.8)h、(4.1±0.5)h和(23.5±2.9)h,A组和B组明显短于C组,P<0.05;血管并发症发生率3组分别为8.8%、10.0%和28.6%,A组和B组亦明显少于C组,P<0.05。结论经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗患者,术后应用Easy stasis血管闭合器安全有效。
Aim To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of a new vascular closure device Easy stasis in patients after undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention（PCI）. Method 208 eases were divided into 3 groups using Easy stasis （group A, n = 68 ）, Angio-Seal （group B, n = 70 ）and standard manual compression（ group c, n = 70 ）to stop bleeding in femoral artery respectively. Hemostasis time, bed rest time and complication rate were compared among groups. Results The success rate of closure of 3 groups was 97.1% ,94.3 %, and 100%, respectively, with no significant differenee,P 〉 0.05. The hemostasis time of 3 groups was （ 1.8 ±1.2） rain, （ 2.0 ± 1.6 ） min and （ 17.9 ±4.3 ） min. Bed rest time was （ 4.7 ＋ 0.8 ） hours, （ 4. 1 ±0.5 ） hours and （ 23.5 ±2.9 ） hours. Group A and B were significantly shorter than C ,P 〈 0.05. Vascular complication rates were 8.8% , 10.0% and 28.6%. Group A and B were significantly superior to C, P 〈 0.05. Conclusion In patients after coronary artery intervention, arterial closure device Easy stasis was safe and effective.
出处
《安徽医药》
CAS
2010年第4期430-431,共2页
Anhui Medical and Pharmaceutical Journal
