CAJ | 학술논문

目的：观察Perclose血管缝合器在经股动脉途径行室上速射频消融治疗中止血疗效比较。方法：199例经股动脉途径室上速射频消融治疗的患者被分为Perclose血管缝合组（Perclose组，98例）与人工按压组（101例），观察两组即刻成功率，止血时间，制动时间与术后并发症的发生率。结果：即刻止血成功率比较两组无统计学差异（98％比100％， P＞0.05）。与人工按压组比较， Perclose组止血时间[（18.9±9.1） min比（2.7±0.7） min]和制动时间[（21.6±3.4） min比（6.3±2.4） min]明显缩短，并发症总发生率（16.8％比4.1％）明显降低（P＜0.05， P＜0.01）。两组并发症发生的具体情况：迷走反射 Perclose组明显低于人工按压组（0比7.9％， P＜0.05），其他并发症两组无统计学差异（P均＞0.05）结论：Perclose血管缝合器止血时间、制动时间短，并发症少，可作为经股动脉途径室上速射频消融治疗后股动脉止血的优先选择。
목적：관찰Perclose혈관봉합기재경고동맥도경행실상속사빈소융치료중지혈료효비교。방법：199례경고동맥도경실상속사빈소융치료적환자피분위Perclose혈관봉합조（Perclose조，98례）여인공안압조（101례），관찰량조즉각성공솔，지혈시간，제동시간여술후병발증적발생솔。결과：즉각지혈성공솔비교량조무통계학차이（98％비100％， P＞0.05）。여인공안압조비교， Perclose조지혈시간[（18.9±9.1） min비（2.7±0.7） min]화제동시간[（21.6±3.4） min비（6.3±2.4） min]명현축단，병발증총발생솔（16.8％비4.1％）명현강저（P＜0.05， P＜0.01）。량조병발증발생적구체정황：미주반사 Perclose조명현저우인공안압조（0비7.9％， P＜0.05），기타병발증량조무통계학차이（P균＞0.05）결론：Perclose혈관봉합기지혈시간、제동시간단，병발증소，가작위경고동맥도경실상속사빈소융치료후고동맥지혈적우선선택。
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 .