Hemostasis effect comparison between artificial pressing and Perclose vascular closure device on femoral artery
10.3969/j.issn.1008-0074.2014.05.26
- VernacularTitle:人工压迫和Perclose血管缝合器的股动脉止血疗效比较
- Author:
Yongdong LI
;
Libin GONG
;
Meijun CHEN
;
Anjie XU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Surgical staplers;
Femoral artery;
Catheter ablation
- From:
Chinese Journal of cardiovascular Rehabilitation Medicine
2014;23(5):563-565
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To observe hemostoisis efficacy and safety of Perclose vascular closure device on femoral artery in transfemoral pathway radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) .Methods :A total of 199 patients undergoing transfemoral RFA of SVT were divided into Perclose vascular closure group (Perclose group ,n=98) and artificial pressing group (n=101) .Immediate success rate ,hemostasis time ,braking time and in-cidence rates of postoperative complications were observed between two groups .Results:There was no significant difference in immediate success rate of hemostasis (98% vs .100% ) between Perclose group and artificial pressing group , P> 0.05. Compared with artificial pressing group , there were significant reductions in hemostasis time [ (18.9 ± 9.1) min vs .(2.7 ± 0.7) min] ,braking time [ (21.6 ± 3.4) min vs .(6.3 ± 2.4) min] and total inci-dence rate of complications (16.8% vs .4.1% ) in Perclose group , P<0.05 or <0.01. Complications:incidence rate of vagal reflex in Perclose group was significantly lower than that of artificial pressing group (0 vs .7.9% ,P<0.05) ,other incidence rates of complications between two groups were no significant difference ( P> 0.05 all) . Conclusion:Perclose vascular closure device could shorten the duration of hemostasis and braking ,and reduce the complications .It could be the preferred choice for femoral artery hemostasis .
