• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

MynxGrip®血管闭合装置与手动压迫用于经皮股静脉穿刺闭合止血的比较:一项前瞻性多中心随机研究的结果

MynxGrip® vascular closure device versus manual compression for hemostasis of percutaneous transfemoral venous access closure: Results from a prospective multicenter randomized study.

作者信息

Ben-Dor Itsik, Craig Paige, Torguson Rebecca, Rogers Toby, Buchanan Kyle D, Pokharel Shreejana, Gai Jiaxiang, Okubagzi Petros G, Satler Lowell F, Pichard Augusto D, Baker Nevin C, Waksman Ron

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, United States.

Interventional Cardiology, Excela Health Heart and Vascular Center, Greensburg, PA, United States.

出版信息

Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018 Jun;19(4):418-422. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.03.007. Epub 2018 Mar 12.

DOI:10.1016/j.carrev.2018.03.007
PMID:29656937
Abstract

PURPOSE

Evaluate the safety of MynxGrip® for common femoral vein closure.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This is a multicenter, randomized, prospective study of 208 patients who were slated to undergo diagnostic/interventional procedures via femoral venous access. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive venous hemostasis via MynxGrip® (n = 104) or manual compression (n = 104) utilizing 5, 6, and 7 Fr sheaths. Bilateral calf and thigh circumferences were measured serially. Patients were followed up through hospital discharge. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the groups for venous thrombosis, (0%, p = 1). Overall, there was no significant change in access site calf (-0.18 ± 1.38 cm, p = 0.18) or thigh diameter (0.33 ± 2.86, p = 0.81). In both groups, none of the patients had major or minor vascular complications, access site infection, nerve injury, or access site bleeding requiring transfusion. The pre- to post-procedure hemoglobin drop was -0.51 ± 1.1 vs. -0.64 ± 1.3 g/dL, p = 0.59 in the manual compression group and MynxGrip® group, respectively. Time to hemostasis, was significantly lower in the MynxGrip® group compared to the manual compression group with 0.12 ± 0.89 vs. 7.6 ± 5.7 min, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The MynxGrip® extravascular sealant is safe and effective for femoral venous access site closure.

摘要

目的

评估MynxGrip®用于股总静脉闭合的安全性。

方法和材料

这是一项多中心、随机、前瞻性研究,纳入208例计划通过股静脉途径进行诊断/介入操作的患者。患者按1:1随机分组,分别接受MynxGrip®(n = 104)或手法压迫(n = 104)进行静脉止血,使用5、6和7F鞘管。连续测量双侧小腿和大腿周长。患者随访至出院。两组基线特征无差异。

结果

两组在静脉血栓形成方面无差异(0%,p = 1)。总体而言,穿刺部位小腿直径(-0.18±1.38cm,p = 0.18)或大腿直径(0.33±2.86,p = 0.81)均无显著变化。两组患者均未发生严重或轻微血管并发症、穿刺部位感染、神经损伤或需要输血的穿刺部位出血。手法压迫组和MynxGrip®组术后血红蛋白下降分别为-0.51±1.1与-0.64±1.3g/dL,p = 0.59。与手法压迫组相比,MynxGrip®组止血时间显著缩短,分别为0.12±0.89与7.6±5.7分钟(p < 0.001)。

结论

MynxGrip®血管外密封剂用于股静脉穿刺部位闭合安全有效。

相似文献

1
MynxGrip® vascular closure device versus manual compression for hemostasis of percutaneous transfemoral venous access closure: Results from a prospective multicenter randomized study.MynxGrip®血管闭合装置与手动压迫用于经皮股静脉穿刺闭合止血的比较:一项前瞻性多中心随机研究的结果
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018 Jun;19(4):418-422. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.03.007. Epub 2018 Mar 12.
2
Use of the MynxGrip vascular closure device in patients undergoing interventional diagnosis or treatment: The PANDA multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial.在接受介入诊断或治疗的患者中使用 MynxGrip 血管闭合装置:PANDA 多中心、开放标签、随机对照试验。
J Vasc Access. 2024 Sep;25(5):1610-1617. doi: 10.1177/11297298231183730. Epub 2023 Jun 21.
3
A multicenter randomized trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of a novel vascular closure device to manual compression in anticoagulated patients undergoing percutaneous transfemoral procedures: The CELT ACD trial.一项多中心随机试验:比较一种新型血管闭合装置与手动压迫止血在接受经皮股动脉介入操作的抗凝患者中的有效性和安全性——CELT ACD试验。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Nov 1;90(5):756-765. doi: 10.1002/ccd.26991. Epub 2017 Mar 15.
4
FemoSeal Device Use for Femoral Artery Closure by Different Techniques.采用不同技术使用FemoSeal装置进行股动脉闭合
Ann Vasc Surg. 2018 Aug;51:18-24. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.02.016. Epub 2018 Apr 18.
5
Mynx vascular closure device achieves reliable closure and hemostasis of percutaneous transfemoral venous access in a porcine vascular model.Mynx血管闭合装置在猪血管模型中实现了经皮股静脉穿刺通路的可靠闭合和止血。
J Invasive Cardiol. 2015 Feb;27(2):121-7.
6
Safety and efficacy study of the wound care 360° SiteSeal® vascular closure device in percutaneous cardiac catheterization procedures.伤口护理360° SiteSeal®血管闭合装置在经皮心脏导管插入术过程中的安全性和有效性研究。
Vascular. 2021 Apr;29(2):228-236. doi: 10.1177/1708538120934573. Epub 2020 Jul 27.
7
A randomized comparison of modified subcutaneous "Z"-stitch versus manual compression to achieve hemostasis after large caliber femoral venous sheath removal.大口径股静脉鞘管拔除后改良皮下“Z”形缝合法与手法压迫止血的随机对照研究
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Jan 1;91(1):105-112. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27003. Epub 2017 Mar 17.
8
A randomized comparison of a novel bioabsorbable vascular closure device versus manual compression in the achievement of hemostasis after percutaneous femoral procedures: the ECLIPSE (Ensure's Vascular Closure Device Speeds Hemostasis Trial).新型生物可吸收血管闭合装置与手动压迫用于经皮股动脉手术后止血效果的随机对照研究:ECLIPSE(确保血管闭合装置加速止血试验)
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009 Aug;2(8):785-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.06.006.
9
Comparison of Vascular Closure Devices Versus Manual Compression After Femoral Artery Puncture in Women.比较女性股动脉穿刺后血管闭合装置与手动压迫的效果。
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Aug;11(8):e006074. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006074.
10
Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture: the ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial.经股动脉穿刺后使用血管闭合装置与手动压迫的比较:ISAR-CLOSURE 随机临床试验。
JAMA. 2014 Nov 19;312(19):1981-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.15305.

引用本文的文献

1
[My patients can go home in the evening after pulmonary vein isolation : Pros and cons].[肺静脉隔离术后我的患者可于当晚出院:利弊分析]
Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2024 Dec;35(4):296-302. doi: 10.1007/s00399-024-01050-w. Epub 2024 Nov 11.
2
Ambulatory pulmonary vein isolation workflow using the Perclose ProglideTM suture-mediated vascular closure device: the PRO-PVI study.使用 Perclose ProglideTM 缝合线介导的血管闭合装置进行门诊肺静脉隔离工作流程:PRO-PVI 研究。
Europace. 2023 Apr 15;25(4):1361-1368. doi: 10.1093/europace/euad022.
3
Vascular Closure Devices versus Manual Compression in Cardiac Interventional Procedures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
血管闭合装置与心脏介入手术中的手动压迫:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Cardiovasc Ther. 2022 Sep 9;2022:8569188. doi: 10.1155/2022/8569188. eCollection 2022.
4
2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias.2019 年 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS 专家共识声明:导管消融治疗室性心律失常。
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2020 Oct;59(1):145-298. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00663-3.
5
2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias: Executive summary.2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS 专家共识声明:导管消融治疗室性心律失常——执行摘要。
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2020 Oct;59(1):81-133. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00664-2.
6
2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias: Executive summary.2019 年 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS 专家共识声明:导管消融治疗室性心律失常——执行摘要。
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Jan;17(1):e155-e205. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.03.014. Epub 2019 May 10.
7
2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias.2019 年 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS 专家共识声明:导管消融治疗室性心律失常
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Jan;17(1):e2-e154. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.03.002. Epub 2019 May 10.
8
2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias.2019 年 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS 专家共识声明:导管消融治疗室性心律失常。
Europace. 2019 Aug 1;21(8):1143-1144. doi: 10.1093/europace/euz132.