CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较桡动脉介入术后TR Band和RDP-700止血器应用的安全性和有效性。方法选取经桡动脉径路行冠状动脉造影并行支架置入术的冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病的患者共180例，随机分为TR组及RDP组，每组患者90例，分别使用TR Band和RDP-700止血器行桡动脉止血。比较观察2种止血器的止血效果、止血压迫时间以及远端肢体肿胀消退时间、压迫侧大拇指血氧饱和度、桡动脉闭塞率、局部手臂肿胀、皮肤缺血坏死发生率的情况。结果两种桡动脉止血装置均有较好的止血效果。止血压迫时间RDP-700组（6.62±0.65）h较TR Band组（9.12±0.58）h止血器压迫时间明显缩短（P＜0.05）；远端肢体肿胀消退时间，RDP-700组（12.17±1.31）h较TR Band组（20.10±2.41）h止血器压迫时间明显缩短（P＜0.05）；两组患者的血氧饱和度监测均在正常范围内，且差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05)；桡动脉闭塞率、皮肤缺血坏死发生率在两组间差异无统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论经桡动脉支架置入术后应用TR Band和RDP-700是安全、有效的，RDP-700具有压迫时间短，远端肢体肿胀消退快的特点。
목적：비교뇨동맥개입술후TR Band화RDP-700지혈기응용적안전성화유효성。방법선취경뇨동맥경로행관상동맥조영병행지가치입술적관상동맥죽양경화성심장병적환자공180례，수궤분위TR조급RDP조，매조환자90례，분별사용TR Band화RDP-700지혈기행뇨동맥지혈。비교관찰2충지혈기적지혈효과、지혈압박시간이급원단지체종창소퇴시간、압박측대무지혈양포화도、뇨동맥폐새솔、국부수비종창、피부결혈배사발생솔적정황。결과량충뇨동맥지혈장치균유교호적지혈효과。지혈압박시간RDP-700조（6.62±0.65）h교TR Band조（9.12±0.58）h지혈기압박시간명현축단（P＜0.05）；원단지체종창소퇴시간，RDP-700조（12.17±1.31）h교TR Band조（20.10±2.41）h지혈기압박시간명현축단（P＜0.05）；량조환자적혈양포화도감측균재정상범위내，차차이무통계학의의（P＞0.05)；뇨동맥폐새솔、피부결혈배사발생솔재량조간차이무통계학의의（P＜0.05）。결론경뇨동맥지가치입술후응용TR Band화RDP-700시안전、유효적，RDP-700구유압박시간단，원단지체종창소퇴쾌적특점。
Objective To compare the safety and effectiveness between TR Band hemostat and RDP-700 hemostat after perradial coronary intervention. Methods The patients (n=180) with coronary heart disease (CHD) undergone perradial coronary angiography and stenting were chosen and divided into TR Band group and RDP-700 group (each n=90). These 2 groups were given respectively TR Band hemostat and RDP-700 hemostat for radial hemostasis during perradial stenting. The hemostatic effect, oppression hemostatic time, swelling subsided time of distal limbs, oxygen saturation of the thumb in oppression side, obliteration rate of radial artery, and incidence of arm local swelling and skin ischemia and necrosis were observed and compared in 2 groups. Results TR Band hemostat and RDP-700 hemostat all had good hemostatic effects. The oppression hemostatic time was significantly shorter in RDP-700 group (6.62±0.65) h than that in TR Band group (9.12±0.58) h (P<0.05). The swelling subsided time of distal limbs was significantly shorter in RDP-700 group (12.17±1.31) h than that in TR Band group (20.10±2.41) h (P<0.05). The monitoring of oxygen saturation showed normal in 2 groups and difference had no statistical significance (P>0.05). The difference in obliteration rate of radial artery and incidence of skin ischemia and necrosis had no statistical significance between 2 groups (P<0.05). Conclusion TR Band hemostat and RDP-700 hemostat are safe and effective applied after perradial stenting, and RDP-700 hemostat has characteristics of shorter oppression hemostatic time and shorter swelling subsided time of distal limbs.