摘要
[目的]系统评价经桡动脉穿刺术后螺旋式与气囊式桡动脉压迫止血器的应用效果。[方法]计算机检索Cochrane Library、PubMed、Ovid Medline、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国知网(CNKI)、万方数据库、维普数据库(VIP)中经桡动脉穿刺术后螺旋式与气囊式桡动脉压迫止血器应用效果的随机对照试验(RCT),经筛选文献、提取资料与评价质量后采用RevMan5.3软件进行Meta分析或仅进行描述性分析。[结果]最终纳入7篇RCT,共2432例研究对象。Meta分析结果显示:螺旋式桡动脉止血器降低术后肢体肿胀率[OR=0.36,95%CI(0.24~0.55),P<0.05]、麻木率[OR=0.32,95%CI(0.18~0.56),P<0.05]、皮肤损伤发生率[OR=0.24,95%CI(0.10~0.56),P<0.05]的效果明显高于气囊式桡动脉止血器。[结论]螺旋式与气囊式桡动脉压迫止血器均能成功达到止血目的,但螺旋式桡动脉止血器对周围组织压迫更小,对皮肤损伤更小。
Objective: To systematically evaluate the effect of spiral and balloon radial artery compression hemostats after transradial artery puncture. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the application of spiral and balloon radial artery compression hemostats after radial artery puncture were searched by computer in Cochrane Library,PubMed,Ovid Medline,Web of Science,CBM,CNKI,Wanfang and VIP databases.Literatures were screened,data were extracted and qualities were evaluated.RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis or only descriptive analysis. Results: Seven RCTs were included,including of 2 432 subjects.Meta-analysis results showed that spiral radial artery hemostat reduced limb swelling rate[OR=0.36,95% CI (0.24,0.55), P <0.05],numbness rate[OR=0.32,95% CI (0.18,0.56), P <0.05],skin injury rate[OR=0.24,95% CI (0.10,0.56), P <0.05].The effects were better balloon radial artery hemostat at the same time. Conclusion: Both spiral and balloon radial artery compression hemostats can achieve the goal of hemostasis successfully,but spiral radial artery hemostats have less compression on surrounding tissues and less skin damage.
作者
张淑
王建宁
周松
黄秋霞
詹梦梅
ZHANG Shu;WANG Jianning;ZHOU Song;HUNAG Qiuxia;ZHAN Mengmei(The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University,Jiangxi 330006 China)
出处
《护理研究》
北大核心
2019年第13期2252-2258,共7页
Chinese Nursing Research
关键词
桡动脉
螺旋式止血器
气囊式止血器
并发症
肿胀
麻木
皮肤损伤
系统评价
radial artery
spiral hemostat
balloon hemostat
complications
swelling
numbness
skin injury
systematic evaluation
