经股动脉PCI术后Perclose ProGlide血管缝合器的临床应用

[目的]评价经股动脉PCI术后应用Perclose ProGlide(Abbott,USA)血管缝合器止血的安全性和可靠性,分析常见并发症及防范措施。[方法]对2007年2月—2011年1月第三军医大学新桥医院3 109例患者经股动脉PCI术后应用Perclose ProGlide血管缝合器止血的效果进行回顾性总结,分析院内并发症和失败原因,观察近期并发症。[结果]止血成功率95.6%(2 973/3 109),止血时间(2.9±0.8)min,术后制动时间(4.3±1.5)h,术后平均住院时间(4.5±1.2)d。院内整体并发症发生率1.6%(51/3 109),包括血肿19例,渗血16例,局部感染10例,假性动脉瘤3例,股动脉夹层2例,腹膜后血肿1例。其中与缝合器止血相关并发症1.2%。截至2012年3月,术后平均随访(12±2)个月,随访率66.7%(2 013/3 109),随访并发症发生率0.1%(3/2 013),其中包括2例迟发性股动脉夹层,1例股动脉晚期血栓。[结论]PCI术后应用Perclose ProGlide血管缝合器止血是一种安全、可靠的止血方法,值得进一步推广。     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Access Planning and Strategies

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a viable tool for the high-surgical-risk population with severe aortic valve stenosis. Vascular access complications are not uncommon with TAVR and may increase early and late mortality. Avoiding these serious complications is the goal. With experience and careful screening, we are now able to risk-stratify patients who may be at increased risk of vascular complications. While the traditional iliofemoral access site remains the most common for TAVR, alternate access sites that have proven to be viable and safe alternatives include the transapical, direct-aortic, and subclavian techniques. TAVR teams should be familiar and comfortable with these approaches as each of them has its own advantages and weaknesses. The best option is usually one in which the procedure is tailored to the patient. The present review examines our current access planning and strategies for TAVR.     

经皮冠状动脉成形术后Perclose ProGlide血管缝合器的临床应用及并发症的防范

目的 评价经皮冠状动脉成形术(percutaneous coronary interventions,PCI)术后,穿刺股动脉应用Perclose ProGlide血管缝合器止血的安全性、可靠性及对常见并发症的防范.方法 2007年4月-2009年5月,收治217例经股动脉PCI术后患者,根据术后是否使用血管缝合器将患...     

Cost-minimization study of the percutaneous approach to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectivePercutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (P-EVAR) is less invasive compared with surgical access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (S-EVAR). P-EVAR has been associated with shorter recovery and fewer wound complications. However, vascular closure devices (VCDs) are costly, and the economic effects of P-EVAR have important implications for resource allocation. The objective of our study was to estimate the differences in the costs between P-EVAR and S-EVAR.MethodsWe used a decision tree to analyze the costs from a payer perspective throughout the course of the index hospitalization. The probabilities, relative risks, and mean difference summary measures were obtained from a systematic review and meta-analysis. We modelled differences in surgical site infection, lymphocele, and the length of hospitalization. Cost parameters were derived from the 2014 National Inpatient Sample using “International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification” codes. Attributable costs were estimated using generalized linear models adjusted by age, sex, and comorbidities. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the robustness of the results.ResultsA total of 6876 abdominal and thoracic EVARs were identified. P-EVAR resulted in a mean cost savings of $751 per procedure. The mean costs for P-EVAR were $1287 (95% confidence interval [CI], $884-$1835) and for S-EVAR were $2038 (95% CI, $757-$4280). P-EVAR procedures were converted to open procedures in 4.3% of the cases. The P-EVAR patients had a difference of −1.4 days (95% CI, −0.12 to −2.68) in the length of hospitalization at a cost of $1190/d (standard error, $298). The cost savings of P-EVAR was primarily driven by the cost differences in the length of hospitalization. In the base case, four VCDs were used per P-EVAR at $200/device. In the two-way sensitivity analysis, P-EVAR resulted in cost savings, even when 1.5 times more VCDs had been used per procedure and the cost of each VCD was 1.5 times greater. In our probabilistic sensitivity analysis, P-EVAR was the cost savings strategy for 82.6% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations when simultaneously varying parameters across their uncertainty ranges.ConclusionsP-EVAR had lower costs compared with S-EVAR and could result in dramatic cost savings if extrapolated to the number of aortic aneurysms repaired. Our analysis was a conservative estimate that did not account for the improved quality of life after P-EVAR.     

Closure of the subclavian artery puncture site with a percutaneous suture device after removal of an arterial pacemaker lead.

We describe the closure of a subclavian artery puncture site with a percutaneous suture device after removal of a pacemaker lead 1 week after its inadvertent positioning in the left ventricle via the subclavian artery. The lead was retracted from the left ventricle into the aorta and linked to a guiding catheter introduced via femoral artery access. The lead and the guiding catheter were removed from the artery to the subclavian area. This manoeuvre allowed the placement of a percutaneous arterial suture device (Perclose) to close the puncture site.     

糖尿病患者冠状动脉介入术后应用外周血管缝合器的效果

目的探讨糖尿病患者冠状动脉介入术后应用外周血管缝合器的安全性和有效性。方法2002年11月至2004年12月我科应用Perclose外周血管缝合器患者共678例,分为糖尿病组和非糖尿病组,观察2组应用缝合器的成功率,并发症发生率,比较其结果有无差异。结果678例成功597例,成功率88.1%,其中糖尿病组170例,成功149例,非糖尿病组508例,成功448例,结果显示无明显统计学差异,糖尿病组总的并发症为5例,非糖尿病组总的并发症为13例,差异无统计学意义。结论糖尿病患者冠状动脉介入术后应用外周血管缝合器可以带来与普通患者同样的益处。     

脑血管介入术后穿刺部位应用 Perclose ProGlid血管缝合器疗效观察及护理

目的：观察在脑血管介入治疗术中应用 Perclose ProGlide 血管缝合器止血的临床效果。方法200例行脑血管介入手术的患者,术后按器械说明书要求的标准使用方法应用 Perclose ProGlide 血管内缝合器缝合股动脉穿刺口,并给予介入术后护理,观察术后恢复情况。结果5例患者穿刺点皮肤有少量渗血,2例患者出现皮下血肿。结论脑血管介入术后穿刺处血管使用 Perclose ProGlid 血管缝合器效果较好,并发症少。     

Pushing covered stents to the limit

• The MANTA is a new, easy-to-use, collagen plug-based vascular closure device specifically designed for large-bore arteriotomy closure.
• The authors report on their experience comparing the MANTA device with the Perclose ProGlide technique in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
• They found similar rates of success and vascular complications with both devices, suggesting that MANTA is a suitable option for these patients.
• It remains to be determined whether one device will emerge as the ideal choice for most patients.
• Device cost is a significant barrier to widespread adoption, but price has decreased recently.