Comparison of invasive blood pressure monitoring versus normal non-invasive blood pressure monitoring in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with percutaneous coronary intervention |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Usak University, Usak, Turkey;2. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Usak University, Usak, Turkey;3. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, Turkey;4. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Usak University, Usak, Turkey;5. Mamak Oral Healt Center, Ankara, Turkey;1. Department of Spine surgery, The Ningbo No.6 Hospital, Ningbo, 315040, Zhejiang Province, China;2. Medical School of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315040, Zhejiang Province, China;1. Trauma and Orthopaedic Department, North Bristol NHS Trust, Brunel Building, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Bristol, BS10 5NB, United Kingdom;2. Trauma and Orthopaedic Department, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Musgrove Park Hospital, Parkfield Drive, Taunton, TA1 5DA, United Kingdom;3. Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, United Kingdom;4. National Institute for Health Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol;1. Computational Neurosciences Outcomes Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women''s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA;2. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women''s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA;1. William Beaumont Army Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, El Paso, Texas, USA;2. Texas Tech University Health Science Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, El Paso, Texas, USA;3. Uniformed Services University, Clinical and Experimental Orthopedics, Bethesda, Maryland, USA;4. Carthage Area Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Carthage, NY, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundHypotension post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) causes stent thrombosis and reduced coronary perfusion, which aggravate myocardial ischemia and lead to patient death. Therefore, the accuracy and timeliness of blood pressure monitoring (BPM) are crucial for the nursing of patients post PCI. However, it is still controversial whether invasive blood pressure monitoring (IBPM) or non-invasive blood pressure monitoring (NIBPM) should be used for patients post PCI, and the magnitude of their assistance for patients’ recovery remains unclear.MethodsA randomized controlled trial was performed in this study. 126 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients post PCI were recruited and randomly divided into two groups (NIBPM group n = 63; IBPM group n = 63).ResultsClinical characteristics and physiological outcomes of participants received different BPM methods were collected and analyzed to compare the effects of these two methods on the nursing of PCI patients. Compared to NIBPM group, IBPM assisted to shorten the time of myocardial ischemia, promote coronary reperfusion, reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular disease and other complications, and ultimately reduce the mortality of patients post PCI.ConclusionThe application of IBPM contributed to reduce the occurrence of complications, shorten the time of vascular reperfusion, and guide treatment of clinicians in time. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
