危重患者经皮冠脉腔内成形术中应用不同止血阀的比较  

Comparison of Three Kinds of Hemostatic Valve in Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty in Critical Patients

作　　者：赖浚兴[1] 宋岸坚[1] 彭宇程[1] 

机构地区：[1]江门市中心医院心内科,广东江门529071

出　　处：《中外医疗》2015年第32期100-101,共2页China & Foreign Medical Treatment

摘　　要：目的比较三款止血阀在危重患者经皮冠脉腔内成形术(PCI)中的优缺点。方法整群抽取该院2011年4月—2014年12月收治的150例危重冠心病患者,将其随机分成3组:试验组使用新型的按压式止血阀COPILOT(50例)、对照1组使用传统的旋转式止血阀(贝朗公司提供)(50例)、对照2组使用传统的旋转式止血阀(雅培公司提供)(50例)。对比三组术中出血情况、血压检测中断时间及手术并发症情况。结果试验组减少出血、减少被动漏气和血压连续检测中断时间分别为(3.4±1.2)m L、(7.5±4.1)s、(9.2±3.6)s,均优于两对照组(P<0.05)。结论按压式止血阀COPILOT在减少出血、连续检测血压、减少被动漏气等方面效果更佳。Objective To compare the advantages and disadvantages of three types of hemostatic valve in percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in critical patients. Methods 150 critical patients with coronary heart disease admitted to this hospital from April 2011 and December 2014 were randomly divided into three groups： the experimental group （ n=50） adopted new COPILOT push-button hemostatic valve, the control group A （n=50） used traditional rotating hemostatic valve provided by Braun, and the control group B （n=50） used traditional rotating hemostatic valve provided by Abbott. The intra-operative blood loss, blackout time of blood pressure measuring, complication were compared between the three groups. Re-sults The intraoperative blood loss, passive leak time, blackout time of continuous blood pressure monitoring was （3.4±1.2） mL,（7.5±4.1）s, （9.2±3.6）s respectively, all superior to that in the two control groups. （P〈0.05）. Conclusion COPILOT push-button hemostatic valve is better in reducing bleeding, monitoring blood pressure continuously and reduce passive leak.

关 键 词：按压式止血阀 旋转式止血阀 危重患者 

分 类 号：R348[医药卫生—基础医学]