我们的网站为什么显示成这样？

可能因为您的浏览器不支持样式，您可以更新您的浏览器到最新版本，以获取对此功能的支持，访问下面的网站，获取关于浏览器的信息：

|本期目录/Table of Contents|

冠脉介入术后Boomerang血管封堵器与人工压迫止血的对比分析(PDF)

《心脏杂志》[ISSN:1009-7236/CN:61-1268/R]

期数:
2008年第4期
页码:
461-463
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2008-08-20

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparative study on hemostasis methods of Boomerang vascular closure device and byhand oppress in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention
作者:
张海涛; 朴龙松; 龚积艳; 黄丛春; 罗惠兰; 刘朝中
空军总医院心内科，北京 100036
Author(s):
ZHANG Haitao;  PIAO Longsong;  GONG Jiyan;  HUANG Congchun;  LUO Huilan;  LIU Chaozhong
Department of Cardiology, Air Force General Hospital of PLA, Beijing 100036, China
关键词:
血管封堵器; 股动脉; 冠状动脉造影; 介入治疗
Keywords:
vascular closure device;  femoral artery;  coronary angiography;  percutaneous coronary intervention
分类号:
R605.972
DOI:
-
文献标识码:
A
摘要:
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。
Abstract:
AIM To evaluate the safety and efficacy of standard manual compression and Boomerang vascular closure device for hemostasis at the femoral artery access site in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary interventions ( PCI). METHODS Totally 300 patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI were assigned to receive either Boomerang (n=140) or standard manual compression (n=160). The efficacy and safety endpoint were evaluated. RESULTS The procedure success rate of completely achieving hemostasis by Boomerang vascular closure device was 964%. The time of hemostasis and the time of leg immobilization in Boomerang group were significantly reduced compared with those in the control group. After PCI, the rates of major vascular complications (52%) in Boomerang group were also significantly decreased compared with those（147%）in the control group. CONCLUSION Hemostasis with Boomerang vascular closure device after CAG or PCI is faster, more effective and safer compared with standard manual compression and can be an alternative for hemostasis at the femoral artery access site.

参考文献/References

［1］ 王晓燕,王海昌,曹丰,等. 冠状动脉介入诊疗术后两种止血方法的比较［J］. 心脏杂志, 2005, 17(3):258-259.

［2］ Nasser TK, Mohler ER 3rd, Wilensky RL, et al. Peripheral vascular complications following coronary interventional procedures［J］. Clin Cardiol, 1995, 18(11):609-614.

［3］ Nasu K, Tsuchikane E, Sumitsuji S, et al. Clinical effectiveness of the Prostar XL suturemediated percutaneous vascular closure device following PCI: results of the Perclose AcceleRated Ambulation and DISchargE(PARADISE)Trial［J］. J Invasive Cardiol, 2003, 15(5):251- 256.

［4］ Rilling WS,Dicker M. Arterial puncture closure using a collagen plug,1.(AngioSeal)［J］. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol, 2003, 6(2):76-81.

［5］ Henk CB, Grampp S, Heimberger K, et al. The Closerpercutaneous vascular suture device: evaluation of safety and performance in neuroangiography［J］. Eur J Radiol, 2003, 48(3):237-243.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期：2007-09-04.通讯作者：刘朝中，教授，主任医师，主要从事冠心病及外周血管介入治疗研究Email：liu_chaozhong@sohu.com 作者简介：张海涛，主治医师，硕士Email：kjzht@sina.com
更新日期/Last Update: