论文部分内容阅读
目的 评价Angioseal缝合器止血的实用性。方法 2 0 0 2 - 10～ 2 0 0 3- 0 7所做的冠状动脉造影或介入治疗病例共 2 6 0例 ,其中冠状动脉造影 15 0例 ,介入治疗 110例。按止血方法不同分为传统压迫止血组和血管缝合组。结果 (1)缝合法与压迫法止血时间及下肢制动时间的比较。单纯冠状动脉造影止血时间分别为 :缝合法(1 8± 0 9)min ,压迫法 (2 5 3± 13 4 )min ,两者差异有非常显著性 (P <0 0 0 1) ;下肢制动时间分别为 :缝合法 (3 8± 0 8)h ,压迫法 (13 4± 2 2 )h ,两者差异有非常显著性 (P <0 0 0 1) ;介入治疗后止血时间 :缝合法与压迫法分别为 (2 0± 1 1)min及 (2 9 5± 14 3)min ,两者差异有非常显著性 (P <0 0 0 1) ;下肢制动时间缝合法与压迫法分别为(4 3± 1 5 )h及 ,(2 4 3± 3 2 )h ,两者差异有非常显著性 (P <0 0 0 1)。 (2 )压迫法术后各类并发症如出血、血肿、迟发出血 (第 3天以后 ,至 1周 )、迷走反射、皮肤溃烂等 ,明显高于缝合法 (P <0 0 0 1)。结论 Angioseal缝合器止血简便、实用、安全。
Objective To evaluate the practicability of the Angioseal suture hemostasis. Methods A total of 260 cases of coronary angiography or interventional therapy were performed in the range of 200-2-10-2 0-0 3- 0 7, including 150 cases of coronary angiography and 110 cases of interventional therapy. According to the method of hemostasis is divided into traditional oppression hemostasis group and vascular suture group. Results (1) Suture method and compression method to stop bleeding time and lower limb brake time comparison. The time of simple coronary angiography was: suture method (18 ± 0 9) min and compression method (2 5 3 ± 13 4) min, respectively, with significant difference between the two groups (P <0.01) The time of operation was (3 8 ± 0 8) h and the compression method was (13 4 ± 2 2) h, respectively. There was a significant difference between the two methods (P <0.01) Legal and oppression laws were (20 ± 1 1) min and (295 ± 14 3) min, respectively, with significant differences between the two groups (P <0.01) (4 3 ± 1 5) h and (2 4 3 ± 3 2) h, respectively. There was a significant difference between the two groups (P 0 01). (2) Complications such as hemorrhage, hematoma, delayed bleeding (from the third day to the first week), vagal reflex and skin ulceration after compression spell were significantly higher than those of suture (P <0.01) . Conclusion Angioseal suture device is simple, practical and safe.