【摘要】 目的 比较经股动脉穿刺拔管后使用Angio-Seal血管闭合器和Perclose ProGlide血管缝合器的患者穿刺点止血效果、短期局部并发症的情况。方法 分析2018年11月至2022年6月汕头大学医学院第一附属医院心血管内科113例经皮股动脉穿刺行血管介入诊疗术后的患者，根据简单随机分组分别行血管闭合器或血管缝合器止血，观察患者的止血时间、下肢制动时间、止血成功率、短期局部并发症。结果 血管闭合组的止血时间（0.00±0.00）min、止血操作时间（57.93±13.29）s较血管缝合组明显缩短（P<0.05）；两组间的下肢制动时间[（6.00±0.00）h比（6.38±1.48）h]、24 h内并发症（1.5%比2.1%）、48 h内术口血肿（1.5%比0.0%）、止血成功率（98.5%比93.6%）比较无统计学差异。结论 两种血管封堵器都存在止血成功率高、术后并发症少等优点，都是安全、有效的止血方式。但是应用Angio-Seal血管闭合器封堵股动脉穿刺部位可大大缩短止血时间及止血操作时间，能有效缓解患者的痛苦。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To compare the hemostatic effect of the puncture site between Angio-Seal and Perclose ProGlide vascular closure devices in the patients after femoral artery puncture. Methods According to the method of simple randomization, a total of 113 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention via femoral artery puncture in the Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of School of Medicine of Shantou University from November 2018 to June 2022 were divided into the Angio-Seal group and Perclose ProGlide group. The hemostasis time, limb immobilization time, success rate of hemostasis and the short-term local complications were observed and compared between the two groups. Results The hemostasis time(0.00±0.00) min and the hemostatic operation time(57.93 ± 13.29) s of the Angio-Seal group were significantly shorter than the Perclose ProGlide group(P<0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the limb immobilization time [(6.00 ± 0.00)h vs.(6.38 ± 1.48)h], 24 h internal complications(1.5% vs. 2.1%),intraoperative hematoma within 48 hours(1.5% vs. 0.0%) and the success rate of hemostasis(98.5% vs. 93.6%).Conclusion Both the vascular closure devices have the advantages of high success rate of hemostasis and less postoperative complications, and are safe and effective hemostasis methods. However, the Angio-Seal vascular closure device can greatly shorten the hemostasis time and hemostasis operation time, which can effectively relieve the pain of patients.更多还原