Angioseal及Perclose两种血管闭合装置疗效的对比研究  

Evaluation of two arterial closure devices,Angioseal and Perclose,in coronary catheter interventions

作　　者：周忠江[1] 崔凯[1] 曹世平[1] 黄铮[1] 郭志刚[1] 修建成[1] 侯玉清[1] 

机构地区：[1]南方医科大学南方医院心内科,广东广州510515

出　　处：《南方医科大学学报》2011年第10期1767-1770,共4页Journal of Southern Medical University

基　　金：国家"十一五"科技支撑计划"心肺脑血管病防治研究"重大项目课题子课题(2006BAI01A02)~~

摘　　要：目的观察Angioseal及Perclose两种血管闭合装置的安全性、有效性及临床应用价值。方法回顾性分析我院心内科2001年1月~2011年4月,经皮冠状动脉造影及介入治疗后使用Perclose和Angioseal血管闭合器患者997例,分别比较两种止血装置的止血时间、制时间、即刻成功率及并发症发生情况。结果 1.止血时间：Perclose组为（10.8±4.8）min,Angioseal组为（3.0±0.9）min,Perclose血管闭合器止血时间显著长于Angioseal闭合器,两组相比有显著性差异（P〈0.001）;2.下肢制动时间：Perclose和Angioseal组患者下肢制动时间分别为（6.4±1.2）h及（6.3±0.7）h,两组相比无统计学差异（P〉0.05）;3.大、小血管并发症发生率：Perclose组并发症发生率为4.5%,Angioseal组并发症发生率为3.7%,两组均无局部血栓形成、下肢动脉栓塞等并发症发生,血管并发症两组比较无统计学差异（P〉0.05）,4.即刻止血成功率：Perclose组即刻成功率为97.8%,Angioseal组即刻成功率为98.6%,两组成功率比较无统计学差异（P〉0.05）,个别止血器操作失败系为人为操作不当及器械因素所致。结论 Angioseal和Perclose两种血管闭合装置大、小血管并发症率发生少,止血时间短,均能有效止血,可做为介入治疗后动脉止血的优先选择。Angioseal血管闭合器与Perclose血管闭合器相比,具有更易操作,止血时间短及并发症发生率有减少趋势等优点。Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of two arterial closure devices,Angioseal and Perclose,in patients undergoing coronary angiography and invasive interventions.Methods From January 2001 to April 2011,997 inpatients underwent coronary angiography and interventions with arterial closure using Perclose（486 cases） or Angioseal（511 cases）.The time to ambulation and hemostasis,major vascular complications and deployment success rate with the two devices were compared.Results The time to hemostasis was significantly shorter in Angioseal group than in Perclose group（3±0.9 min vs 10.8±4.8 min,P0.001）,but the time to ambulation was comparable between the two groups（6.4±1.2 h vs 6.3±0.7 h,P0.05）.The incidences of vascular complications showed no significant differences between the two groups（4.5% vs 3.7%,P0.05）,and none of the cases in either group developed femoral artery thrombosis or low limb embolism following the procedures.The deployment success rate was comparable between the two groups（97.8% vss 98.6%,P0.05）,and deployment failure was associated mainly with mishandling and design defect of the devices.Conlusion Angioseal and Perclose are both effective and safe for arterial closure with reduced hemostasis and ambulation time and low incidences of vascular complications.Angioseal appears to have better performance than Perclose in shortening the hemostasis time and is easier to handle.

关 键 词：血管闭合装置 冠状动脉介入 ANGIOSEAL PERCLOSE 

分 类 号：R543[医药卫生—心血管疾病]