经桡动脉冠状动脉介入术后“8”字交叉橡皮膏止血法与气囊加压式[摘要]目的：对比分析经桡动脉冠状动脉介入检查与治疗（TRI）术后“8”字交叉橡皮膏止血法和气囊加压式止血器止血法两种方法在止血效果、预防穿刺血管并发症和医疗费用等方面的差异。方法：连续入选行TRI的患者并将其随机分为“8”字交叉橡皮膏止血组和气囊加压式止血器组，观察指标为止血效果、并发症的发生率、医疗费用。结果：与气囊加压式止血器组比较，“8”字交叉橡皮膏组桡动脉闭塞发生率较高（P=0.047），止血时间较长（P<0.001），术后穿刺部位纤维硬结发生率较高（P<0.001），但总血管并发症发生率比较，差异无统计学意义（12.7％vs10.9％，P=0.259），医疗费用明显减少（P<0.001）。结论：“8”字交叉橡皮膏止血法较气囊加压式止血器止血法个别并发症发生率高，止血时间较长，但同样安全有效，更能节约医疗费用。[关键词]桡动脉介入术；“8”字交叉橡皮膏；止血法[]R542.22[文献标识码]Ａ[]1673-7210（2011）07（a）-047-03Studyofcomparisonbetweenfigure-of-8stickingplasterhemostaticmethodandtheballoonforcingradialhemostaticmethodinthepatientsundergoingtransradialcoronaryinterventionLIUZhiqiang,ZHANGFucheng,WUXiao,ZHANG激ngyu,WANGZhifang,SUShuhong,ZHANGHaizhao,LIShilinDepartmentoftheThirdCardiology,theCentralHospitalofXinxiangCity,He′nanProvince,Xinxiang453000,China[Abstract]Objective:Tocomparethehemostasiseffect,incidencerateofvascularrelatedcomplicationandfee-for-serviceoffigure-of-8stickingplasterhemostaticmethodandtheballoonforcingradialhemostaticmethodinthepatientsundergoingtransradialcoronaryintervention.Methods:ThepatientsundergoingTRIwereselectedanddividedinto2groups,thegroupoffigure-of-8stickingplasterhemostaticmethodandthegroupofballoonforcingradialhemostaticmethod.Theobservingindexwashemostasiseffectandincidencerateofvascularrelatedcomplicationandfee-for-service.Results:Therewasasignificanthigherrateofradialarterialocclusioninthegroupoffigure-of-8stickingplasterhemostaticmethodthanthegroupofballoonforcingradialhemostaticmethod(P=0.047).Thecompressiontimewaslongerandtherateoffibroussclerosiswashigherinthegroupoffigure-of-8stickingplasterhemostaticmethodthanthegroupofballoonforcingradialhemostaticmethod(P＜0.001),buttheoverallincidenceofvascularrelatedcomplicationinthe2groupswassimilar(12.7%vs10.9%,P=0.259).Thefee-for-servicewassignificantlowerinthegroupoffigure-of-8stickingplasterhemostaticmethodthangroupoftheballoonforcingradialhemostaticmethod(P<0.001).Conclusion:Somecomplications′ratearehigherandthecompressiontimeislongerinthegroupoffigure-of-8stickingplasterhemostaticmethodthanthoseofthegroupofballoonforcingradialhemostaticmethod,butthefigure-of-8stickingplasterhemostaticmethodissafeandeffective,andmorecheaplycomparedwiththeballoonforcingradialhemostaticmethod.[Keywords]Radialarteryinterventiontechnique;Figure-of-8stickingplaster;Hemostaticmethod近年来，随着经桡动脉冠状动脉介入技术（TRI）的推广，TRI已经和常规经股动脉介入治疗一样，成为冠心病介入治疗的两大主流入路选择。多个临床研究已经证实，血管并发症和出血事件发生率与患者术后短期及长期生存率有直接关系[1]。与经股动脉介入治疗比较，TRI有穿刺血管并发症发生率低、早期活动、出血事件低、易为患者接受等优点，因此，TRI得到广泛普及[2]。TRI术后血管并发症虽然较少，但如果出现后处理不及时，仍可以造成严重后果，甚至致残。本研究对比分析了TRI术后“8”字交叉橡皮膏加压止血法和气囊加压式止血器止血法两种方法在止血效果、预防穿刺血管并发症等方面和由此带来的医疗费用方面的差异。现报道如下：1资料与方法1.1一般资料收集2009年2月～2011年2...