TR—Band止血器在经皮冠状动脉介入诊疗中的应用效果［摘要］目的比较桡动脉穿刺术后传统绷带和TR-Band止血器压迫方法的效果。方法选取2013年6月〜2015年3月在我院经挠动脉途径进行PCI的患者580例进行回顾性对比分析，按照包扎方法分为绷带组（290例）和TR-Band止血器组（290例），观察两组的止血成功率、压迫止血总时间、包扎止血操作时间、远端肿胀消退时间、术后2d内出血、轻度皮下淤血、压迫后指端血氧饱和度，局部皮肤破损坏死、桡动脉闭塞、迷走神经反射、前臂疼痛或压痛情况，术后至出院时间。结果绷带组有12例一次止血失败，出现出血及渗血，TR-Band止血器组止血全部成功，无术后出血及渗血情况，两组比较，差异有统计学意义（P=0.0008）;绷带组操作时间、术后压迫止血总时间、术后远端肿胀消退时间明显比TR-Band止血器组长（P0.05）。两组均未发生桡动脉闭塞、迷走神经反射、局部皮肤破损坏死。结论与传统绷带加压包扎方法相比TR-Band止血器在经桡动脉冠状动脉介入诊疗后止血中的效果可靠，并发症发生率低。［关键词］TR-Band止血器；经挠动脉冠状动脉介入治疗；止血［中图分类号］R654.2［文献标识码］A［文章编号］1674-4721(2016)10(b)-0039-03［Abstract］ObjectiveTocomparetheeffectoftraditionalbandageandTR-Bandhemostatforcompressionafterradialarterypuncture.Methods580patientsgiventransradialapproachforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionbyourhospitalfromJune2013toMarch2015wereselectedforretrospectivecomparativeanalysisandaccordingtothedressingmethod，thesubjectsweredividedintobandagegroup(290cases)andTR-Bandhemostatgroup(290cases).Thefollowingindexeswereobserved：successfulrateofhemostasis，thetotaltimeofhemostasisbycompression，operationtimeofhemostasisbydressing，regressiontimeofdistalswelling,postoperativebleedingintwodays,mildsubcutaneouscongestion,fingertipbloodoxygensaturationaftercompression,damageandnecrosisoflocalskin，radialarteryocclusion，vagusreflex，painortendernessofforearm,painortenderness,andtimetodischargeaftersurgeryintwogroupswasobservedrespectively.ResultsInbandagegroup，therewere12casesfailedinonetimehavingbleedinganderrhysiswhileinTR-Bandhemostatgroup，hemostasiswasentirelysuccessfulavingnobleedinganderrhysis,thentherewasastatisticaldifferencebetweentwogroups(P=0.0008).Operationtime，thetotaltimeofhemostasisbycompressionafteroperation，regressiontimeofdistalswellingafteroperationinbandagegroupwasobviouslylongerthanthatofTR-Bandhemostatgrouprespectively(P0.05).Therewasnoradialarteryocclusion,vagusreflex,painortendernessofforearm,damageandnecrosisoflocalskinintwogroups.ConclusionComparedwithcompressiondressingmethodoftraditionalbandage，hemostasiseffectofTR-Bandhemostatisreliableinhemostasisaftertransradialapproachforpercutaneouscoronaryintervention,andincidencerateofcomplicationislower.[Keywords]TR-Bandhemostat；Transradialapproachforpercutaneouscoronaryintervention；Hemostasis冠状动脉造影(coronaryangiography，CAG)及经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(percutaneouscoronaryintervention，PCI)是目前明确冠心病诊断和治疗的最重要的方法之一［1-2］。CAG最初是通过股动脉入路［3］。经烧动脉冠状动脉介入治疗(transradialcoronaryintervention,TRI)技术己有10余年的发展历史［4］。TRI具有创伤小、并发症少、患者恢复快、住院时间短等优点，已经成为冠状动脉介入诊疗术的首选路径［5］。最初，TRI止血用弹力绷带加压包扎。随着TRI的广泛应用，烧动脉止血措施要求越来越高，饶动脉止血器应运而生。本科室自2012年6月开展TRI后开始应用TR-Band止血器止血，至今技术己非常成熟。为了比较TR-Band止血器和绷带压迫止血的优缺点，本研究选取在我院经桡动脉途径进行PCI的患者580例进行对比分析。1资料与方法1...