Suppr超能文献

止血装置对桡动脉闭塞的影响:桡动脉止血研究中压迫装置的随机比较。

Effect of hemostatic device on radial artery occlusion: A randomized comparison of compression devices in the radial hemostasis study.

作者信息

Sanghvi Kintur A, Montgomery Mathew, Varghese Vincent

机构信息

Department of Interventional Cardiology, Deborah Heart & Lung Center, United States of America.

Department of Cardiology, Deborah Heart & Lung Center, United States of America.

出版信息

Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018 Dec;19(8):934-938. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.08.013. Epub 2018 Aug 23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion (RAO) is a major limitation of transradial catheterization (TRC). Two radial compression hemostatic devices are compared for their respective effects on RAO.

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized, single center, blinded trial, 320 patients were randomly treated with a TR band (Terumo Corporation) or Safeguard Radial (Merit Medical). Institution wide protocols consisting of anticoagulation, patent hemostasis, duration of compression, and use of 6 French slender sheaths (Terumo Corporation) were observed. Patient discomfort related to the device was recorded using the universal pain scale. Radial artery patency was evaluated by reverse Barbeau's test prior to discharge (1-hour post-diagnostic catheterization or 6-24 hour post-intervention) and at 30-days.

RESULTS

Of the 320 patients, 155 were randomized to the TR group (TRG) and 159 to the Safeguard group (SGG). 6 patients were excluded due to the inability to insert 6 Fr slender sheaths or patient withdrawing consent. Demographic and procedural characteristics were similar with the exception of the type of coronary procedure performed. Both bands were equally effective in achieving patent hemostasis. Despite having a higher rate of post-procedure hematoma (1.29% TRG vs. 3.1% SGG, p = 0.04) and acute RAO (3.8% TRG vs. 6.28% SGG, p = 0.05) with the Safeguard band, at 30 days RAO was similar in both groups (1.9% TRG vs. 2.5% SGG; p = 0.21). Patients in the SGG reported significantly less band discomfort and were found to require less air to achieve patent hemostasis.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based contemporary TRC protocols of using smaller diameter access, anticoagulation, and use of just enough pressure for the shortest duration of time to achieve hemostasis is associated with very low RAO rate at 30 days irrespective of the radial compression device used.

摘要

背景

无症状性桡动脉闭塞(RAO)是经桡动脉导管插入术(TRC)的主要限制因素。比较两种桡动脉压迫止血装置对RAO的各自影响。

方法

在一项前瞻性、随机、单中心、盲法试验中,320例患者被随机用TR带(泰尔茂公司)或桡动脉保护装置(美力医疗公司)进行治疗。观察全院范围内关于抗凝、止血通畅、压迫持续时间以及使用6F细鞘(泰尔茂公司)的方案。使用通用疼痛量表记录与装置相关的患者不适。在出院前(诊断性导管插入术后1小时或干预后6 - 24小时)和30天时,通过反向巴博试验评估桡动脉通畅情况。

结果

320例患者中,155例被随机分配至TR组(TRG),159例被分配至桡动脉保护装置组(SGG)。6例患者因无法插入6F细鞘或患者撤回同意而被排除。除所进行的冠状动脉手术类型外,人口统计学和手术特征相似。两种止血带在实现止血通畅方面同样有效。尽管使用桡动脉保护装置的术后血肿发生率较高(TRG为1.29%,SGG为3.1%,p = 0.04)以及急性RAO发生率较高(TRG为3.8%,SGG为6.28%,p = 0.05),但在30天时两组的RAO情况相似(TRG为1.9%,SGG为2.5%;p = 0.21)。SGG组的患者报告的止血带不适明显较少,并且发现实现止血通畅所需的空气量较少。

结论

基于证据的当代TRC方案,即使用较小直径的穿刺通路、抗凝以及在最短时间内使用刚好足够的压力来实现止血,无论使用何种桡动脉压迫装置,在30天时RAO发生率都非常低。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验