Comparison of hemostatic effects between elastic bandage pressure hemostasis and balloon pressure hemostasis device after transradial coronary intervention in male patients
-
摘要:
目的 探讨男性患者经桡动脉冠状动脉介入治疗(TRA-PCI)后弹力绷带压迫止血法与气囊压迫止血器的止血的效果差异。 方法 将经右侧桡动脉行TRA-PCI的208例男性患者,根据术后压迫止血方式不同分为弹力绷带压迫止血组(n=105)和气囊压迫止血器组(n=103),比较两组基线特征及桡动脉并发症发生率。 结果 两组患者基线资料比较,年龄、体质量指数、吸烟、既往史、入院诊断、在院用药情况差异均无显著统计学意义。两组患者并发症比较,术区出血、皮肤瘀斑、上肢肿胀、手部发绀、张力性水疱、桡动脉闭塞、上肢悬挂治疗的比例差异均无显著统计学意义。弹力绷带压迫止血组较气囊压迫止血器组上肢麻木(0.00% vs. 2.91%,P<0.05)、上肢疼痛(0.00% vs. 5.83%,P<0.05)、总体事件(4.76% vs. 17.48%,P<0.01)比例低,且差异均具有显著统计学意义。两组患者均无迷走神经反射、动静脉瘘发生。 结论 弹力绷带压迫止血法与气囊压迫止血器相比,能够减少男性患者TRA-PCI的术后相关并发症发生率。 -
关键词:
- 男性 /
- 经皮冠状动脉介入治疗 /
- 止血法 /
- 桡动脉血管并发症
Abstract:AIM To explore the difference in hemostatic effects between elastic bandage compression hemostasis method and balloon pressure hemostatic device after percutaneous coronary intervention via radial artery (TRA-PCI) in male patients. METHODS A total of 208 male patients who underwent TRA-PCI via right radial artery were divided into elastic bandage compression hemostasis group (n=105) and balloon pressure hemostatic device group (n=103) according to different methods of postoperative pressure compression hemostasis. Baseline data and the incidence of baseline and radial artery complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS There were no significant differences in age, body mass index, previous medical history, admission diagnosis and medication between the two groups . There were no significant differences in operative area bleeding, skin ecchymosis, upper limb swelling, hand cyanosis, tension blister, radial artery occlusion and upper limb suspension treatment between the two groups . The elastic bandage compression hemostasis group had lower upper limb numbness (0.00% vs. 2.91%, P<0.05), upper limb pain (0.00% vs. 5.83%, P<0.05) and overall events (4.76% vs. 17.48%, P<0.01) than the balloon compression hemostat group, and the difference was statistically significant. There was no vagus reflex and arteriovenous fistula in both groups. CONCLUSION Radial artery elastic bandage compression hemostasis reduces postoperative complications in male patients after TRA-PCI compared with radial balloon compression hemostatic device. -
表 1 两组患者基线资料
项目 气囊压迫止
血器组(n=103)弹力绷带压迫
止血组(n=105)年龄(岁) 61±9 59±10 体质量指数(kg/m2) 25±3 26±3 吸烟史 79(76.7) 82(78.1) 既往史 高血压病 61(59.2) 70(66.7) 糖尿病 28(27.2) 34(32.4) 脑血管病 11(10.7) 4(4.0) 心律失常 6(5.8) 12(11.4) 心功能不全 11(10.7) 7(6.7) 高脂血症 0(0.0) 1(1.0) 既往支架 28(27.2) 21(20.0) 既往外科搭桥 1(1.0) 4(3.8) 入院诊断 急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死 16(15.5) 15(14.3) 急性非ST段抬高型心肌梗死 15(14.6) 18(17.1) 不稳定型心绞痛 72(69.9) 72(68.6) 在院用药 氯吡格雷 83(80.6) 83(79.0) 替格瑞洛 20(19.4) 22(21.0) 低分子肝素 27(26.2) 26(24.8) 血管转换酶抑制剂 67(65.0) 81(77.1) 血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂 10(9.7) 10(9.5) 钙离子阻滞剂 56(54.4) 59(56.2) β-受体阻滞剂 97(94.2) 100(95.2) 降糖药 28(27.2) 34(32.4) 表中计数资料均为[例数(%)]。 表 2 两组患者终点事件发生情况
变量 气囊压迫止
血器组(n=103)弹力绷带压迫
止血组(n=105)术区出血 2(1.9) 2(1.9) 皮肤瘀斑 0(0.0) 1(1.0) 上肢麻木 3(2.9) 0(0.0)a 上肢疼痛 6(5.8) 0(0.0)a 上肢肿胀 2(1.9) 0(0.0) 手部发绀 1(1.0) 0(0.0) 张力性水疱 1(1.0) 2(1.9) 迷走神经反射 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 桡动脉闭塞 1(1.0) 0(0.0) 动静脉瘘 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 上肢悬挂治疗 2(1.9) 0(0.0) 总体事件* 18(17.5) 5(4.8)b 表中计数资料均为[例数(%)]。与气囊压迫止血器组比较,aP<0.05, bP<0.01 -
[1] Libby P, Pasterkamp G, Crea F, et al. Reassessing the mechanisms of acute coronary syndromes[J]. Circ Res, 2019, 124(1): 150 – 160. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.311098 [2] Sousa-Uva M, Neumann FJ, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2019, 55(1): 4 – 90. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy289 [3] Kim M, Chu A, Khan Y, et al. Predicting and preventing vascular complications following percutaneous coronary intervention in women[J]. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther, 2015, 13(2): 163 – 172. doi: 10.1586/14779072.2015.995635 [4] 闵 英, 刘艳杰, 赵 妍, 等. 弹力绷带法与气囊压迫止血器对经桡动脉冠状动脉介入术后止血效果比较的单中心、前瞻性、随机对照研究[J]. 心脏杂志, 2019, 31(5): 544 – 547,560. doi: 10.12125/j.chj.201908025 [5] 闵 英, 赵 妍, 孙 宁, 等. 经桡动脉行冠状动脉介入治疗患者压迫器止血法的护理分析[J]. 中国临床实用医学, 2019, 10(6): 53 – 55. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-8799.2019.06.013 [6] 闵 英, 赵 妍, 李 菲, 等. 改良护理方法在经桡动脉冠状动脉支架置入术后前臂血肿中的应用[J]. 中国临床实用医学, 2017, 8(5): 88 – 90. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-8799.2017.05.026 [7] Reifart J, Göhring S, Albrecht A, et al. Acceptance and safety of femoral versus radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI): results from a large monitor-controlled German registry (QuIK)[J]. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2022, 22: 7. doi: 10.1186/s12872-021-02283-0 [8] Fang Y, Zhong Q. Investigation of the value of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and coronary artery lesions in prognosis of percutaneous coronary intervention patients[J]. Am J Transl Res, 2021, 13(6): 6646 – 6653. [9] Ferrante G, Rao SV, Jüni P, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions across the entire spectrum of patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2016, 9(14): 1419 – 1434. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.04.014 [10] Coghill EM, Johnson T, Morris RE, et al. Radial artery access site complications during cardiac procedures, clinical implications and potential solutions: the role of nitric oxide[J]. World J Cardiol, 2020, 12(1): 26 – 34. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v12.i1.26 [11] Kyriakopoulos V, Xanthopoulos A, Papamichalis M, et al. Patent hemostasis of radial artery: comparison of two methods[J]. World J Cardiol, 2021, 13(10): 574 – 584. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v13.i10.574 [12] Roghani F, Tajik MN, Khosravi A. Compare complication of classic versus patent hemostasis in transradial coronary angiography[J]. Adv Biomed Res, 2017, 6: 159. doi: 10.4103/abr.abr_164_16 [13] Roy S, Kabach M, Patel DB, et al. Radial artery access complications: prevention, diagnosis and management[J]. Cardiovasc Revasc Med, 2022, 40: 163 – 171. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2021.12.007 [14] Abecassis IJ, Saini V, Crowley RW, et al. The rist radial access system: a multicenter study of 152 patients[J]. J Neurointerv Surg, 2022, 14(4): 403 – 407. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017739 -

表(2)
计量
- 文章访问数: 45
- HTML全文浏览量: 3
- PDF下载量: 7
- 被引次数: 0