冠状动脉介入术后血管缝合器的血管并发症分析  

Complications of angioseal blood vessel closure after coronary intervention

作　　者：张稳柱[1] 宋明才[1] 梁嘉永[1] 李健豪[1] 雷汉东[1] 苏景强[1] 陈国钦[1] 

机构地区：[1]番禺区人民医院心内科,广州511400

出　　处：《岭南心血管病杂志》2008年第3期190-192,共3页South China Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases

摘　　要：目的分析冠状动脉介入术后Angioseal血管缝合器机械止血和人工压迫止血的血管并发症发生率。方法947例冠状动脉介入诊治病例,179例术后使用Angioseal血管缝合器止血(机械组),另外768例进行人工压迫止血(人工组),比较二组的止血时间、制动时间和血管并发症发生率。结果机械组显著缩短止血时间和制动时间(P<0.01),但其与人工组的血管并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论使用Angioseal血管缝合器能显著缩短止血时间和制动时间,但不能减少股动脉穿刺并发症的发生率,不推荐介入术后常规使用机械止血装置。Objectives To analyze the complications between angioseal blood vessel closure and manual compression in patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary interventions. Methods Nine hundred forty seven patients were allocated to hemostatic treatment with Angioseal blood vessel closure （mechanical group, n=179 ） or by manual compression （manual group, n=768 ） after coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary interventions. Time to achievement of hemostasis, braking time and vascular complications were compared between the two groups. Results Both time to achievement of hemostasis and braking time were significantly reduced in the mechanical group （P〈 0.01 ）, but the incidence of various vascular complications was similar between mechanical group and manual group （P〉 0.05 ）. Conclusions Angioseal blood vessel closure can achieve hemostasis and ambulation faster than manual compression, but it can not decrease vascular complications at the access site, arteriotomy closure device used as routine may not be reasonable after coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary interventions.

关 键 词：冠状动脉造影 冠状动脉介入治疗 血管缝合器 止血 并发症 

分 类 号：R541.4[医药卫生—心血管疾病]