Wu Pei-Jung, Dai Yu-Tzu, Kao Hsien-Li, Chang Chin-Hao, Lou Meei-Fang
Department of Nursing, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Sec. 2, Shipai Road, Taipei City, 11217, Taiwan.
School of Nursing, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, 1, Sec. 1, Jen-Ai Road, Taipei City, 10063, Taiwan.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2015 May 9;15:34. doi: 10.1186/s12872-015-0022-4.
Vascular closure devices such as angioseal are used as alternatives to traditional compression haemostasis. Although the safety and efficacy of angioseal are confirmed, their use remains controversial because of the potential complications of these devices compared with those of traditional compression haemostasis. The aim of this study was to compare the access site complication rate, the predictive factors for these complications, and patient comfort levels after coronary procedures with traditional compression or angioseal haemostasis.
Data were collected from a cardiac unit in a medical center in northern Taiwan. A total of 130 adult patients were recruited and equally divided into two groups according to the method of haemostasis used after the coronary procedure: a traditional compression group and an angioseal group. We observed the incidence of access site complications, including bleeding, oozing, haematoma formation, and arteriovenous fistula formation. In addition, we used a 0-10 numeric rating scale to assess soreness, numbness, and back and groin access site pain after 1 h of catheter removal and immediately before getting out of bed.
The overall incidence of complications was 3.8 % (n = 5), which was not significantly different between the two groups (p = .06). The propensity score--adjusted multivariate analyses revealed that the only independent predictor for access site complications was an age of >70 years (OR, 10.44; 95 % CI, 1.81-60.06; p = .009). Comfort levels were higher in the angioseal group than in the traditional compression group.
Angioseal used after coronary procedures did not increase the incidence of complications relative to that associated with traditional compression haemostasis; however, it increased patient comfort levels. Health personnel should pay special attention to the predictive factor for access site complications after coronary procedures, such as age >70 years.
血管闭合装置如血管封堵器被用作传统压迫止血的替代方法。尽管血管封堵器的安全性和有效性已得到证实,但与传统压迫止血相比,由于这些装置存在潜在并发症,其使用仍存在争议。本研究的目的是比较冠状动脉手术后采用传统压迫或血管封堵器止血的穿刺部位并发症发生率、这些并发症的预测因素以及患者的舒适度。
数据收集自台湾北部一家医疗中心的心脏科。共招募了130名成年患者,根据冠状动脉手术后使用的止血方法将其平均分为两组:传统压迫组和血管封堵器组。我们观察了穿刺部位并发症的发生率,包括出血、渗血、血肿形成和动静脉瘘形成。此外,我们使用0至10的数字评分量表,在拔除导管1小时后以及即将下床前评估酸痛、麻木以及背部和腹股沟穿刺部位的疼痛情况。
并发症的总体发生率为3.8%(n = 5),两组之间无显著差异(p = 0.06)。倾向评分调整后的多变量分析显示,穿刺部位并发症的唯一独立预测因素是年龄>70岁(OR,10.44;95%CI,1.81 - 60.06;p = 0.009)。血管封堵器组的舒适度高于传统压迫组。
冠状动脉手术后使用血管封堵器相对于传统压迫止血而言,并未增加并发症的发生率;然而,它提高了患者的舒适度。医护人员应特别关注冠状动脉手术后穿刺部位并发症的预测因素,如年龄>70岁。