Application effect evaluation of the best evidence for the prevention of radial artery occlusion after transradial coronary angiography or intervention
10.3760/cma.j.cn211501-20220420-01224
- VernacularTitle:预防经桡动脉冠状动脉造影或介入术后桡动脉闭塞的最佳证据应用效果评价
- Author:
Xiaomei ZHOU
1
;
Guangyan CAO
;
Hao WANG
;
Suyun WANG
Author Information
1. 山东大学齐鲁医院（青岛）心内科，青岛 266000
- Keywords:
Radial artery occlusion;
Transradial coronary angiography;
Transradial coronary intervention;
Evidence application
- From:
Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing
2023;39(8):561-567
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To apply the best evidence for the prevention of radial artery occlusion after transradial coronary angiography or intervention to clinical practice and evaluate its effect.Methods:This was a quasi-experimental study. Based on the evidence continuous quality improvement model, evidence-based practice method was used to obtain the best evidence, formulated review indicators, analyzed the obstacles in the practice process and took action strategies. The 88 patients who underwent transradial coronary angiography or intervention in the Cardiology Department of Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao) from June 1 to 30, 2020 were selected as the baseline review group by convenience sampling. The 94 patients who underwent this treatment from September 1 to 30, 2020 were selected as the evidence application group. The baseline review group used the original perioperative management plan, and the evidence application group used the perioperative management plan based on the best evidence. The implementation rate of each review indicator, the incidence of radial artery occlusion, the degree of compression pain, and the comfort level of patients were compared between the two groups.Results:The implementation rates of review indicators 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 in the evidence application group were 100.0% (94/94), 100.0% (94/94), 11.7(11/94), 88.3% (83/94), 100.0% (94/94), 100.0%(94/94), 85.1%(80/94), respectively, which were higher than those in the baseline review group(all 0), except for the review indicator 4, the differences were statistically significant ( χ2 values were 9.00-178.02, all P<0.05). The incidence of radial artery occlusion and the incidence of pain Numerical Rating Scale>3 points in the evidence application group were 2.1% (2/94) and 3.2% (3/94), respectively, which were lower than 14.8% (13/88) and 23.9% (21/88) in the baseline review group; the comfort level of patients in the evidence application group was 96.8% (91/94), which was higher than 63.6% (56/88) in the baseline review group. The differences were statistically significant ( χ2 = 8.01, 15.21, 30.10, all P<0.05). Conclusions:The best evidence for the prevention of radial artery occlusion after transradial coronary angiography or intervention can be applied to clinical practice, which can standardize the behavior of medical staff, reduce the incidence of postoperative radial artery occlusion, reduce the degree of compression pain, and improve the comfort of patients.
