人工压迫和Perclose血管缝合器的股动脉止血疗效比较

目的：观察Perclose血管缝合器在经股动脉途径行室上速射频消融治疗中止血疗效比较。方法：199例经股动脉途径室上速射频消融治疗的患者被分为Perclose血管缝合组（Perclose组，98例）与人工按压组（101例），观察两组即刻成功率，止血时间，制动时间与术后并发症的发生率。结果：即刻止血成功率比较两组无统计学差异（98％比100％， P＞0.05）。与人工按压组比较， Perclose组止血时间[（18.9±9.1） min比（2.7±0.7） min]和制动时间[（21.6±3.4） min比（6.3±2.4） min]明显缩短，并发症总发生率（16.8％比4.1％）明显降低（P＜0.05， P＜0.01）。两组并发症发生的具体情况：迷走反射 Perclose组明显低于人工按压组（0比7.9％， P＜0.05），其他并发症两组无统计学差异（P均＞0.05）结论：Perclose血管缝合器止血时间、制动时间短，并发症少，可作为经股动脉途径室上速射频消融治疗后股动脉止血的优先选择。

Hemostasis effect comparison between artificial pressing and Perclose vascular closure device on femoral artery

Objective：To observe hemostoisis efficacy and safety of Perclose vascular closure device on femoral artery in transfemoral pathway radiofrequency ablation （RFA） of supraventricular tachycardia （SVT） .Methods ：A total of 199 patients undergoing transfemoral RFA of SVT were divided into Perclose vascular closure group （Perclose group ,n=98） and artificial pressing group （n=101） .Immediate success rate ,hemostasis time ,braking time and in-cidence rates of postoperative complications were observed between two groups .Results：There was no significant difference in immediate success rate of hemostasis （98% vs .100% ） between Perclose group and artificial pressing group , P〉 0.05. Compared with artificial pressing group , there were significant reductions in hemostasis time [ （18.9 ± 9.1） min vs .（2.7 ± 0.7） min] ,braking time [ （21.6 ± 3.4） min vs .（6.3 ± 2.4） min] and total inci-dence rate of complications （16.8% vs .4.1% ） in Perclose group , P〈0.05 or 〈0.01. Complications：incidence rate of vagal reflex in Perclose group was significantly lower than that of artificial pressing group （0 vs .7.9% ,P〈0.05） ,other incidence rates of complications between two groups were no significant difference （ P〉 0.05 all） . Conclusion：Perclose vascular closure device could shorten the duration of hemostasis and braking ,and reduce the complications .It could be the preferred choice for femoral artery hemostasis .