...
首页> 外文期刊>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions: Official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions >Closure of the femoral artery after cardiac catheterization: a comparison of Angio-Seal, StarClose, and manual compression.
【24h】

Closure of the femoral artery after cardiac catheterization: a comparison of Angio-Seal, StarClose, and manual compression.

机译:心脏导管插入术后股动脉的闭合:Angio-Seal,StarClose和手动加压的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To compare Angio-Seal (AS) and StarClose (SC) and manual compression (MC) on efficacy of hemostasis, complication rate, safety of early mobilization, and patient comfort. BACKGROUND: Closure of the femoral artery after cardiac catheterization can be obtained through different methods. Today, physicians can choose from a number of different devices to achieve arterial closure. METHODS: In a prospective trial 450 patients were randomized to AS, SC, or MC. Patients were mobilized 1 to 2 hr after device placement, and 6 hr after MC. Data were collected during hospital admission and by telephone at one month after hospital discharge. RESULTS: Devices were used in 138/150 allocated to AS and 124/150 allocated to SC patients (92% vs. 83%, P = 0.015) Patients with MC experienced more pain during sheath removal than patients receiving a device, and rated their period of bed rest as less comfortable. Oozing and need for pressure bandage at the puncture site were observed in 37 AS patients and 57 SC patients (25% vs. 38%, P = 0.002). Hematoma occurred in 15 AS patients, in 17 SC patients, and in 14 MC patients (11 vs. 14 vs. 9%, ns). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in safety between the three methods of arterial closure. SC was more often not used or successfully deployed. SC patients more often had continuing oozing. On patient comfort, closure devices performed better than MC. Early ambulation in patients with a closure device is safe. AS is the preferred method of arterial closure after cardiac catheterization.
机译:目的:比较Angio-Seal(AS)和StarClose(SC)以及手动加压(MC)在止血功效,并发症发生率,早期动员安全性和患者舒适度方面的优势。背景:心脏插管后股动脉的闭合可以通过不同的方法获得。如今,医生可以从多种不同的设备中进行选择,以实现动脉闭合。方法:在一项前瞻性试验中,将450例患者随机分为AS,SC或MC。放置器械后1至2小时以及MC后6小时动员患者。在入院期间和出院后一个月通过电话收集数据。结果:在分别分配给AS的138/150和分配给SC患者的124/150中使用了器械(92%比83%,P = 0.015)MC患者在鞘膜摘除过程中比接受器械的患者遭受更多的疼痛,并对其评分卧床休息时间不如舒适。在37例AS患者和57例SC患者中观察到渗血和穿刺部位需要压力绷带(25%vs. 38%,P = 0.002)。血肿发生在15例AS患者,17例SC患者和14例MC患者中(11%vs. 14%vs. 9%,ns)。结论:三种动脉闭合方法在安全性方面没有差异。 SC经常不使用或未成功部署。 SC患者更经常持续渗出。在患者舒适度方面,闭合装置的性能优于MC。使用闭合装置的患者早期活动很安全。 AS是心脏导管插入术后首选的动脉闭合方法。

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