首页> 外文期刊>VASA: Zeitschrift fuer Gefarsskrankheiten. Journal for vascular diseases >Mechanical compression versus haemostatic wound dressing after femoral artery sheath removal: a prospective, randomized study.
【24h】

Mechanical compression versus haemostatic wound dressing after femoral artery sheath removal: a prospective, randomized study.

机译:股动脉鞘切除术后机械加压与止血伤口敷料的前瞻性随机研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Bleeding complications in the groin are one of the major disadvantages of femoral catheter procedures. The immobilisation of the patient and the compression bandages can jeopardize the patients' comfort. Aim of the study was a randomized comparison of safety and patient comfort of mechanical pressure followed by pressure bandage overnight using two different haemostatic pads after femoral artery sheath removal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine hundred and eight consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic procedures via a 5 or 6 F femoral sheath were randomly selected either for mechanical compression therapy followed by a compression bandage (302 patients, group 1), or manual compression with application of a calcium ion releasing device (compression bandage only after application of > 5000 IU of heparin; 303 patients; group 2), or manual compression with a thrombin covered PAD without compression bandage (303 patients, group 3). RESULTS: No major hemorrhage or death occurred. A false aneurysm was found in 10 (3.3%), 13 (4.3%), and 10 patients (3.3%) of group 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p = 0.38). Three patients (0.3%) needed surgical treatment. 69 (22.7%) patients in thrombin covered PAD-group required a compression bandage overnight due to seeping hemorrhage after 15 minutes. In the calcium ion releasing PAD-group 124 (40.9%) patients had continued bandaging, 46 (15.2%) due to seeping hemorrhage after 15 min, and 78 (25.7%) due to application of heparin > 5000 IU. CONCLUSIONS: The use of mechanical compression combined with a pressure bandage, and the use of haemostatic wound dressing assisted sheath removal technique offer a comparable level of safety. Patient comfort is improved with the usage of PAD devices, however the technical failure rate of the PAD should be taken into account.
机译:背景:腹股沟出血并发症是股动脉导管手术的主要缺点之一。患者的固定和压迫绷带会危害患者的舒适度。这项研究的目的是随机比较安全性和患者对机械压力的舒适度,然后在股动脉鞘去除后使用两个不同的止血垫过夜加压绷带。患者和方法:随机选择908例通过5或6 F股骨鞘进行诊断或治疗的患者,进行机械加压治疗,然后采用加压绷带包扎(302例患者,第1组),或通过手动加压应用钙离子释放装置(仅在应用> 5000 IU的肝素后加压绷带; 303例患者;第2组),或用凝血酶覆盖的PAD手动加压而无加压绷带(303例患者,第3组)。结果:未发生大出血或死亡。第1、2和3组分别有10例(3.3%),13例(4.3%)和10例患者(3.3%)发现假动脉瘤(p = 0.38)。三名患者(0.3%)需要手术治疗。凝血酶覆盖PAD组中的69名(22.7%)患者由于15分钟后渗血而需要压迫绷带过夜。在释放钙离子的PAD组中,有124名(40.9%)的患者继续包扎,其中15分钟后渗出的出血有46名(15.2%),而肝素> 5000 IU则有78名(25.7%)。结论:机械加压结合压力绷带的使用以及止血伤口敷料辅助的护套去除技术的使用可提供相当的安全性。使用PAD设备可提高患者的舒适度,但是应考虑PAD的技术故障率。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号