Efficacy of different compression methods for hemostasis at the radial artery puncture point after percutaneous coronary intervention
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1008-6706.2022.01.007
- VernacularTitle:冠状动脉介入术桡动脉穿刺点不同压迫止血方案效果的比较
- Author:
Guohua JI
1
;
Qi WU
;
Hongbin WU
;
Xiangfeng SHEN
;
Xingwei ZHANG
Author Information
1. 杭州师范大学附属医院心内科，杭州 310015
- Keywords:
Postoperative hemorrhage;
Percutaneous coronary intervention;
Hemostatic techniques;
Radial artery;
Tourniquets;
Comfort
- From:
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
2022;29(1):28-32
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the hemostatic effects and patient comfort of different compression methods for hemostasis after transradial coronary intervention.Methods:A total of 160 patients who received transradial coronary intervention in The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University from October 2018 to February 2020 were included in this study. In group A ( n = 80), patients underwent spiral compression at the puncture point (release for 1 turn at 2 hours after surgery, rotation for 1 circle after 1 hour, and full decompression). In group B ( n = 80), patients underwent spiral compression at the puncture point (release for 1 turn at 2 hours after surgery, rotation for 1 circle after 2 hours, and full decompression). Percutaneous arterial oxygen saturation value in the affected limb, heart rate, and Visual Analog Scale score at different times after surgery, pain and comfort score at 2 and 12 hours post-surgery were compared between the two groups. Results:Percutaneous arterial oxygen saturation value at 4 and 12 hours post-surgery in group A was (96.6 ± 0.7)% and (97.8 ± 0.5)%, respectively, which was significantly higher than that in group B [(96.2 ± 0.6)%, (97.6 ± 0.7)%, t = 3.88, 2.08, both P < 0.05]. There were no significant differences in total score and subscale score of the General Comfort Questionnaire at 2 hours post-surgery between groups A and B (both P < 0.05). At 12 hours post-surgery, scores of psychological and physical subscales and total score of the General Comfort Questionnaire in group A were (23.64 ± 3.02) points, (12.64 ± 2.05) points, (68.25 ± 6.04) points, which were significantly higher than those in group B [(22.20 ± 2.96) points, (11.38 ± 2.47) points, (64.42 ± 6.71) points, t = 3.05, 3.51, 3.79, all P < 0.05]. At 2 hours post-surgery, there was no significant difference in Numerical Rating Scale score between groups A and B ( P > 0.05). At 4 and 12 hours post-surgery, Numerical Rating Scale score in group A was (2.51 ± 0.58) points and (1.75 ± 0.76) points, respectively, which was significantly lower than that in group B [(2.95 ± 0.63) points, (2.31 ± 0.71) points, t = -4.59, -4.82, both P < 0.05). The incidence of complications was significantly lower in group A than in group B (8.75% vs. 20.00%, χ2 = 4.11, P < 0.05). Conclusion:Compression for hemostasis is highly effective by releasing for 1 turn at 2 hours after transradial coronary intervention, rotating for 1 circle after 1 hour, and full compression because it can greatly mitigate pain, ensure the oxygen supply to the affected limbs, and improve patient comfort.
