冠状动脉介入术后血管缝合的血管并发症分析

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。     

冠状动脉介入诊疗术后两种止血方法的比较

目的:比较冠状动脉诊疗术的冠状动脉介入术（PCI）及冠状动脉造影术（CAG）后,传统压迫法与采用Angioseal缝合器止血法的制动时间和并发症发生率,为术前指导和术后护理提供依据。方法:CAG及PCI患者214例按止血方法不同分为传统压迫止血组和血管缝合组,比较两组术后制动时间和并发症的发生率。结果:采用Angioseal缝合法成功率达100%,与压迫法止血比较下肢制动时间不论单纯CAG还是PCI均显著缩短（P<0.01）,缝合法术后并发症的发生率如渗血、局部血肿、迟发出血（第3天以后,至1周）、心迷走反射等显著低于传统压迫止血组（P<0.01）。结论:Angioseal缝合器止血较传统压迫止血护理操作简便,安全性高,并发症少。     

冠脉介入术后3种止血方法的比较

目的评价血管缝合器（Perclose和Angioseal）在冠状动脉造影（CAG）或经皮冠状动脉内介入术（PCI）后股动脉止血的临床应用价值。方法选择2004年12月至2005年12月在我院行CAG或PCI术的患者180例,分为A、B、C3组,每组60例。A组使用Perclose封闭股动脉穿刺点,B组使用Angioseal封闭股动脉穿刺点,C组使用常规人工压迫方法止血。观察止血时间、制动时间、及术后并发症的发生情况。结果使用Perclose和Angioseal的止血时间和下肢制动时间均较手法压迫止血显著缩短（均P<0.01）,其中使用Angioseal的止血时间还要略少于使用Perclose的止血时间,且操作更简单,但二者在止血时间和制动时间方面无统计学差异。3组在术后并发症方面无统计学差异。结论Perclose和Angioseal较常规压迫止血显著缩短止血时间和患者卧床时间。     

经皮血管缝合器的临床安全性评价

目的:评价冠状动脉造影和介入治疗后Perclose血管缝合器止血的临床安全性。方法:对264例接受冠状动脉造影或支架术患者,在术后使用血管缝合器Perclose 132例(Perclose组)或人工压迫止血132例(人工组)作股动脉穿刺部位止血。比较2组的止血时间、制动时间和血管并发症发生率。结果:Perclose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(5.3%∶6.1%,P>0.05)。结论:使用Perclose血管缝合器能显著缩短止血时间和制动时间,但不减少股动脉穿刺并发症的发生。     

血管缝合器的临床使用价值

目的:对比研究应用Perclose血管缝合器与人工压迫止血的效果,评价血管缝合器的疗效、安全性和临床使用价值.方法:486例经股动脉行冠状动脉介入诊治术的患者,术后按是否接受血管缝合器止血分为缝合组(n=228)和常规组(n=258),比较止血时间、制动时间、血管并发症发生率.结果:缝合组操作成功率为97.34%;缝合组较常规组止血时间、制动时间均明显缩短[(5.4±2.2)min比(22.3±8.1)min,P＜0.001;(5.3±2.1)h比(20.5±9.6)h,P＜0.001];血管并发症发生率明显降低(2.63%比6.98%,P＜0.05).结论:冠状动脉介入诊治术后应用血管缝合器(Perclose)止血是安全、有效的,能明显缩短止血时间和制动时间,减少血管并发症的发生,但费用较昂贵.     

经皮冠状动脉介入术后应用血管闭合器与人工压迫止血效果比较

目的:对比冠状动脉造影术（CAG）与冠脉介入治疗（PC I）术后,应用经皮血管闭合器（Angio-SealTM）与人工压迫止血对患者止血时间、制动时间及并发症的发生率,评价Angio-SealTM止血疗效及安全性,并对其操作要点进行归纳总结。方法:将接受CAG与PC I术的患者277例,分为Angio-SealTM组（107例）与人工压迫止血组（170例）,观察两组患者止血时间、卧床及制动时间、并发症的发生率。结果:Angio-SealTM止血组与人工压迫止血组相比,止血时间、卧床及制动时间显著缩短,血管并发症明显降低。应用Angio-SealTM止血成功率97%。结论:Angio-SealTM止血明显优于人工压迫止血。     

冠脉介入术后Boomerang血管封堵器与人工压迫止血的对比分析

目的评价在冠状动脉造影（CAG）术及经皮冠状动脉介入术（PCI）后应用人工压迫与Boomerang血管封堵器在股动脉径路止血中的安全性和有效性。方法300例经股动脉行CAG或PCI治疗的患者,分为人工压迫止血组160例,Boomerang血管封堵器组140例,对比观察两种止血方法的成功率、止血时间、制动时间及血管并发症。结果Boomerang血管封堵器止血成功率96.4%,与人工压迫法比较止血时间及下肢制动时间不论单纯CAG还是PCI均显著缩短,PCI组中,封堵器止血后总的血管并发症发生率5.2%,显著低于传统压迫组（14.7%）。结论Boomerang血管封堵器止血迅速、有效、安全,优于人工压迫止血,值得临床推广。     

国产血管封堵器与血管缝合器用于介入术后止血效果比较

将208例行冠状动脉造影或支架术患者随机分成对照组和观察组,分别于手术后使用血管缝合器Perclose和国产血管封堵器行股动脉穿刺部位止血,比较两组止血时间、制动时间和血管并发症发生率.结果 两组止血时间和制动时间与人工压迫相比均显著缩短(P＜0.05),两组间无统计学差异;血管并发症发生率无统计学差异(P均＞0.05).认为Perclose血管缝合器或封堵器均能显著缩短止血时间和制动时间,但封堵器适用范围更广.     

冠脉介入术后Angioseal血管缝合与压迫止血的对比研究

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。     

Angio-Seal血管封堵器对冠状动脉介入治疗后卧床时间及舒适度的影响

目的观察Angio-Seal血管封堵器止血对患者冠状动脉介入治疗后卧床制动时间及舒适度的影响。方法200例患者行冠状动脉介入治疗后,分为血管封堵器组100例和人工压迫止血组100例,术后用Angio-Seal血管封堵器止血或人工压迫止血。观察两组卧床制动时间及舒适度。结果血管封堵器组卧床制动时间明显少于人工压迫止血组,差异有统计学意义[（4.4±1.8）h vs.（22.4±2.4）h,P〈0.05]。两组患者术后2 h舒适度比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;术后8 h舒适度血管封堵器组高于人工压迫止血组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论用Angio-Seal血管封堵器止血可缩短卧床制动时间,减轻患者痛苦,提高患者舒适度。     

老年冠状动脉介入治疗患者三种动脉止血方法术后舒适度的比较

目的比较冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)三种动脉止血方法对老年患者术后舒适度的影响,探讨适宜的护理方案。方法 396例接受冠状动脉介入治疗的老年患者,按股动脉穿刺点止血方法分为手工压迫组(A组,n=162),Femostop压迫组(B组,n=106),和Perclose组(C组,n=128),监测各组患者入院时、术前、术后6h、术后1d内心率、血压变化,睡眠困难、胃肠道症状、躯体疼痛以及出血血栓事件的发生率。结果与手工压迫组比较,Per-close组患者术后生命体征波动小,睡眠困难、排尿障碍、胃肠道症状、躯体疼痛发生程度较轻;Femostop组术后舒适度各指标与手工压迫组相比无差异;Perclose组出血并发症明显低于Femostop压迫组及手工压迫组。三组血栓事件的发生率无明显差异。结论对接受PCI治疗的老年患者,Perclose止血方法可明显改善患者术后舒适程度;对接受不同止血方法的患者应采取不同的护理方案,以改进护理效率及质量。     

Vascular access site complications with the use of closure devices in patients treated with platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during rescue angioplasty.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two different closure devices in patients undergoing rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using IIb/IIIa inhibitors and to compare it with patients undergoing elective PCI. One hundred sixty-two patients undergoing rescue PCI treated with IIb/IIIa inhibitors underwent vascular access site closure (6 Fr Perclose, n = 92, or 6 Fr Angioseal, n = 70). Vascular complications were compared with a sex- and age-matched group (n = 100) of patients undergoing manual compression after sheath removal and a similar group of patients undergoing elective PCI (n = 196). The incidence of access site complications was not significantly different between the three groups undergoing rescue PCI and was not higher than in patient receiving GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors without fibrinolysis (RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.88-1.01). In patients undergoing rescue PCI and receiving IIb/IIIa inhibitors, closure devices allow early sheath removal and are associated with similar outcomes compared with manual compression and elective PCI regardless of the type of closure device used.     

A comparison of arterial closure devices to manual compression in liver transplantation candidates undergoing coronary angiography

Whether arterial closure devices can be used safely in a coagulopathic population undergoing cardiac catheterization and at high risk for groin complications, such as liver transplant candidates, is unknown. In this prospective, non-randomized consecutive series of 80 liver transplant candidates undergoing coronary angiography, manual compression and arterial closure devices were compared. Ilio-femoral angiography was performed to determine suitability for use of the closure device. Bleeding and vascular complications were recorded along with time to ambulation. Arterial closure devices were used in 31 patients (39%), whereas manual compression was used in 49 patients (50 procedures) (61%). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to age, sex, cardiac risk factors, peripheral vascular disease, baseline platelet count or baseline INR. There were 10 total vascular complications out of 50 procedures (20%) in the manual compression group compared to 2 vascular complications out of 31 procedures in the arterial closure device group (6%; p = 0.12). The time to ambulation was significantly less in the group receiving arterial closure devices versus manual compression (4.2 1.8 hours versus 6.6 3.7 hours, respectively; p = 0.0003). In coagulopathic patients at higher risk for groin complications, arterial closure devices can be safely used and decrease time to ambulation compared to manual compression.     

Vascular closure devices in patients treated with anticoagulation and IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors during percutaneous revascularization

OBJECTIVES: The study assessed clinical outcomes of closure device use following percutaneous coronary revascularization using current standards of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy. BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the outcomes of patients by use of vascular closure devices during coronary interventions employing current standards of anticoagulation and glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor therapy is limited. METHODS: We evaluated outcomes of 4,525 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention between July 1997 and April 2000. All patients received anticoagulation with heparin and GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor therapy with abciximab. The closure method was manual in 1,824 patients, Angioseal in 524 patients and Perclose in 2,177 patients. Procedural and hospital vascular outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Closure device success was 97.1% Angioseal and 94.1% Perclose (p < 0.05). Minor vascular complications occurred in 1.8% of manual patients, 1.1% of Angioseal patients and 1.2% of Perclose patients (p = NS); major complications occurred in 1.3% of manual patients, 1.1% of Angioseal patients and 1.0% of Perclose patients (p = NS). Multivariate logistic regression identified only closure device failure as an independent predictor of a vascular complication. In patients with successful closure with a device, minor complications (0.8% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.05) and any complication (1.5% vs. 2.5%, p < 0.05) were reduced compared to manual compression. CONCLUSIONS: Arterial closure following coronary interventions using anticoagulation and GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor therapy can be safely and effectively performed, with vascular complication rates similar to or lower than with manual pressure. Additionally, vascular complication rates using GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor therapy regardless of the method of arterial closure are equivalent to or lower than previously published rates of vascular complications.     

Efficacy of Percutaneous Vascular Hemostasis System Prostar: Comparison to Manual Compression

In this study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous vascular surgery device (Prostar) for sealing the femoral artery puncture site after coronary interventions. We also compared the results with Prostar (n = 167) and conventional manual compression methods (n = 50) in a nonrandomized fashion. The average time to hemostasis in the Prostar system group was 13.5 minutes, versus 36.6 minutes in the compression group. The average time to ambulation was 2.2 hours in the Prostar system group, versus 17.8 hours in the manual group. Bleeding was observed in 1.2% of the subjects in the Prostar system group, versus 12% in the manual compression group. One emergency surgery was required in the manual compression group, whereas no surgical intervention was required in the Prostar group. We conclude that the Prostar system for percutaneous vascular closure appears to be a safe technique for achieving an early hemostasis and ambulation after coronary intervention.     

新型血管封堵器在心导管术后应用120例观察

目的评价新一代血管封堵器Angio-Seal STS在冠状动脉造影及介入术后股动脉封闭中的应用价值。方法对重庆医科大学附属第一医院心内科2004-09—2005-12收治的298例病人,分为血管封堵器A组(120例)和人工压迫B组(178例),观察止血成功率、止血时间、卧床时间及血管性并发症。结果A组在止血时间、卧床时间及腰背痛不适上明显低于B组(P<0·05)。在止血成功率、腹股沟皮下血肿及血管迷走神经反射方面两组差异无显著性(P>0·05)。结论Angio-Seal STS血管封堵器对股动脉穿刺点能快速、有效地止血,缩短卧床时间,且不增加血管性并发症。Angio-Seal STS特点是自身紧闭式缝合,无须已往使用Angio-Seal后放置的弹簧。     

心导管术后经皮动脉血管封堵器的临床应用

目的比较经皮冠状动脉介入术后,股动脉穿刺口采用Angio-Seal血管封堵器与局部人工压迫止血方法的疗效与安全性。方法196例进行心导管检查的患者,随机分为股动脉穿刺口人工压迫止血组(82例,其中冠状动脉造影术36例,冠状动脉成形术46例)和血管封堵器止血组(114例,其中冠状动脉造影术52例,冠状动脉成形术62例),观察止血时间、并发症及成功率。结果Angio-Seal血管封堵器与局部人工压迫止血法比较,止血时间明显缩短,并发症减少,成功率相当。结论Angio-Seal血管封堵器在掌握好适应证的前提下,可广泛应用于经皮冠状动脉手术后股动脉穿刺口的处理。     

抗凝和抗血小板治疗对血管缝合器有效性和安全性的影响

目的探讨抗凝和抗血小板治疗对血管缝合器临床应用有效性和安全性的影响。方法回顾性分析抗凝和抗血小板治疗后进行冠状动脉(冠脉)造影(CAG)和或冠心病介入治疗(PCI)并采用徒手压迫或血管缝合止血的成功率、失败率以及血管并发症等。CAG组仅接受常规的抗凝和抗血小板治疗,而PCI组接受强化的抗凝和抗血小板治疗,包括术前使用噻氯匹定或氯吡格雷,术中使用肝素。结果共完成股动脉血管缝合218例,其中CAG组120例,PCI组98例,血管缝合成功率分别高达91.7%和90.8%(组间差异无统计学意义,P>0.05),均低于徒手压迫的成功率(P<0.05),而且分别有8.3%和9.2%的失败率,但其血管并发症仅见小血肿伴股动脉感染,发生率仅为1%,甚至低于徒手压迫;而且血管缝合不受是否已用抗凝剂和抗血小板药物的制约,可以在CAG和或PCI术后即刻拔鞘,止血方法简便,而且省时省力,患者也易于接受。结论常规或强化的抗凝和抗血小板治疗后应用血管缝合器即刻止血有效而安全,其血管并发症与徒手压迫相似甚至更低。