Carey D, Martin J R, Moore C A, Valentine M C, Nygaard T W
Stroobants Heart Center, Lynchburg General Hospital, Lynchburg, Virginia 24501, USA.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001 Jan;52(1):3-7; discussion 8. doi: 10.1002/1522-726x(200101)52:1<3::aid-ccd1002>3.0.co;2-g.
We have examined our prospectively collected experience with femoral artery closure devices. Vasoseal (n = 937), Angioseal (N-742), and Techstar (n = 1001) were utilized consecutively in our laboratory for diagnostic and interventional femoral artery closures. Complications were compared to a similar number of closures with manual compression (MC; n = 1019) before closure devices were utilized. The incidence of surgical repair, acute femoral closure, transfusion due to groin complications, readmission for groin complications, infection, and total complications were examined. We found that the Vasoseal and Angioseal devices were associated with higher rates of total complications than manual compression. The Techstar and manual compression had similar total complication rates. Acute femoral artery occlusion was a potentially serious complication with the Angioseal device. Groin infection occurred with each of the closure devices but not with manual compression.
我们回顾了前瞻性收集的使用股动脉闭合装置的经验。在我们实验室中，依次使用了Vasoseal（n = 937）、Angioseal（N = 742）和Techstar（n = 1001）进行诊断性和介入性股动脉闭合。在使用闭合装置之前，将并发症与通过手法压迫进行的类似数量的闭合（手法压迫；n = 1019）进行了比较。检查了手术修复、急性股动脉闭合、因腹股沟并发症输血、因腹股沟并发症再次入院、感染及总并发症的发生率。我们发现，Vasoseal和Angioseal装置与比手法压迫更高的总并发症发生率相关。Techstar和手法压迫的总并发症发生率相似。急性股动脉闭塞是Angioseal装置的一种潜在严重并发症。每种闭合装置均出现了腹股沟感染，但手法压迫未出现。
