摘要
目的评价并比较Angioseal和Perclose两种血管闭合器在经皮冠状动脉造影(CAG)及介入治疗(PCI)中应用的有效性和安全性。方法1020例行冠脉造影及介入治疗的患者(男672例,女348例,年龄57.8±2.4岁)经髂动脉造影证实无血管闭合器使用禁忌,术后随机分为Angioseal组(CAG380例,PCI120例)和Perclose组(CAG392例,PCI128例),比较两组患者使用血管闭合器的成功率及局部并发症的发生率。结果Angioseal和Perclose两组成功率均较高(94%比96%),差异无统计学意义。Angioseal组发生局部血肿5例,无假性动脉瘤发生;Perclose组发生局部血肿4例,假性动脉瘤3例,两组间并发症的发生率差异亦无统计学意义。结论CAG及PCI术后,Angioseal和Perclose血管闭合器均能有效止血,并发症较低,安全性好。
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of two kinds of arterial suture-mediated closure devices （Angioseal and Perclose） in patients after coronary arteriography （CAG） and percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI）. Me＇rituals 1020 patients （672 male, 348 female, mean age57.8±2.4yr） undergoing CAG or PCI were randomized into either the Angioseal group （CAG 380, PCI 120） or the Perclose group （CAG 392, PCI 128） . The procedural success rate and occumnce of local complications were compared between the two groups. Results Both kinds of devices had a high success rate （Angioseal 94% vs Perclose 96% ） and there was no statistical difference between them. There were five cases of hematoma and no pseudoaneurysm in the Angioseal group. On the other hand, there were four cases of hematoma and three cases of pseudoaneurysm in preclose group. There was no statistal difference in terms of local complications between the 2 groups. Conclusion Both kinds of arterial suture-mediated closure devices （Angioseal and Perclose） are feasible and safe for patients undergoing CAG and PCI.
出处
《中国介入心脏病学杂志》
2005年第6期375-376,共2页
Chinese Journal of Interventional Cardiology
关键词
血管闭合器
血管成形术
经腔
经皮冠状动脉
Arterial suture-mediated closure devices
Angioplasty, transluminal, percutaneous coronary
