冠状动脉造影患者使用手动压迫法和钳夹法拔除动脉鞘后血管并发症的比较

Javad Kazemi Darafshani, Seyyed Abbas Hosseini, S. Babaei, Alireza Khosravi Farsani
{"title":"冠状动脉造影患者使用手动压迫法和钳夹法拔除动脉鞘后血管并发症的比较","authors":"Javad Kazemi Darafshani, Seyyed Abbas Hosseini, S. Babaei, Alireza Khosravi Farsani","doi":"10.34172/jcs.2023.30700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Angiography stands as the paramount and definitive diagnostic method for coronary artery disease. However, akin to various other invasive procedures, it may carry a multitude of complications. This study sought to assess the incidence of vascular complications post-arterial sheath removal, comparing the use of a ClampEase device against manual compression. Methods: This quasi-experimental clinical trial involved patients undergoing angiography at the post-angiography ward in Isfahan, Iran. A total of 91 patients were selected through convenience sampling and randomly assigned to either the manual compression or ClampEase device groups. Monitoring common vascular complications like hemorrhage, hematomas, and ecchymosis occurred up to 24 hours post-arterial sheath removal. Data were collected using a digital scale model DM3, a transparent flexible ruler, and a questionnaire named ‘vascular complications after angiography.’ Analysis was performed using SPSS software version 13. Results: Statistical analysis revealed that, when compared to the manual method, compression with the ClampEase device led to fewer vascular complications in patients and a quicker return to homeostasis. Conclusion: The findings underscore that the ClampEase method is a safer alternative with fewer vascular complications than the manual compression method. This discovery has implications for reducing hospital costs and length of stay. The ClampEase device is associated with a swifter time to hemostasis, contributing to enhanced patient comfort and acceptance.","PeriodicalId":15317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Caring Sciences","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Vascular Complications after Arterial Sheath Removal using Manual Compression Method and ClampEase Method in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography\",\"authors\":\"Javad Kazemi Darafshani, Seyyed Abbas Hosseini, S. Babaei, Alireza Khosravi Farsani\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/jcs.2023.30700\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Angiography stands as the paramount and definitive diagnostic method for coronary artery disease. However, akin to various other invasive procedures, it may carry a multitude of complications. This study sought to assess the incidence of vascular complications post-arterial sheath removal, comparing the use of a ClampEase device against manual compression. Methods: This quasi-experimental clinical trial involved patients undergoing angiography at the post-angiography ward in Isfahan, Iran. A total of 91 patients were selected through convenience sampling and randomly assigned to either the manual compression or ClampEase device groups. Monitoring common vascular complications like hemorrhage, hematomas, and ecchymosis occurred up to 24 hours post-arterial sheath removal. Data were collected using a digital scale model DM3, a transparent flexible ruler, and a questionnaire named ‘vascular complications after angiography.’ Analysis was performed using SPSS software version 13. Results: Statistical analysis revealed that, when compared to the manual method, compression with the ClampEase device led to fewer vascular complications in patients and a quicker return to homeostasis. Conclusion: The findings underscore that the ClampEase method is a safer alternative with fewer vascular complications than the manual compression method. This discovery has implications for reducing hospital costs and length of stay. The ClampEase device is associated with a swifter time to hemostasis, contributing to enhanced patient comfort and acceptance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Caring Sciences\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Caring Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/jcs.2023.30700\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Caring Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/jcs.2023.30700","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言血管造影术是诊断冠状动脉疾病最重要、最明确的方法。然而,与其他各种侵入性手术类似,血管造影术也可能带来多种并发症。本研究旨在评估拔除动脉鞘后血管并发症的发生率,并对使用 ClampEase 装置和人工压迫进行比较。方法:这项准实验临床试验涉及在伊朗伊斯法罕的血管造影术后病房接受血管造影术的患者。通过便利性抽样共选取了 91 名患者,随机分配到手动压迫组或 ClampEase 装置组。监测常见的血管并发症,如出血、血肿和瘀斑,发生在拔除动脉鞘后的 24 小时内。数据收集使用了 DM3 型电子秤、透明软尺和一份名为 "血管造影术后血管并发症 "的问卷。使用 SPSS 软件 13 版进行分析。结果统计分析显示,与手动方法相比,使用 ClampEase 装置进行压迫可减少患者的血管并发症,并能更快地恢复平衡。结论研究结果表明,与人工按压法相比,ClampEase 法是一种更安全、血管并发症更少的替代方法。这一发现对减少住院费用和住院时间具有重要意义。ClampEase 设备止血时间更短,有助于提高患者的舒适度和接受度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Vascular Complications after Arterial Sheath Removal using Manual Compression Method and ClampEase Method in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography
Introduction: Angiography stands as the paramount and definitive diagnostic method for coronary artery disease. However, akin to various other invasive procedures, it may carry a multitude of complications. This study sought to assess the incidence of vascular complications post-arterial sheath removal, comparing the use of a ClampEase device against manual compression. Methods: This quasi-experimental clinical trial involved patients undergoing angiography at the post-angiography ward in Isfahan, Iran. A total of 91 patients were selected through convenience sampling and randomly assigned to either the manual compression or ClampEase device groups. Monitoring common vascular complications like hemorrhage, hematomas, and ecchymosis occurred up to 24 hours post-arterial sheath removal. Data were collected using a digital scale model DM3, a transparent flexible ruler, and a questionnaire named ‘vascular complications after angiography.’ Analysis was performed using SPSS software version 13. Results: Statistical analysis revealed that, when compared to the manual method, compression with the ClampEase device led to fewer vascular complications in patients and a quicker return to homeostasis. Conclusion: The findings underscore that the ClampEase method is a safer alternative with fewer vascular complications than the manual compression method. This discovery has implications for reducing hospital costs and length of stay. The ClampEase device is associated with a swifter time to hemostasis, contributing to enhanced patient comfort and acceptance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Nursing Students’ Attitudes Toward Seeking Psychological Help Associated to Self-Stigma and Perceived Social Stigma Effectiveness of Swallowing and Oral Care Interventions on Oral Intake and Salivary Flow of Patients Following Endotracheal Extubation at a Tertiary Care Center: A Randomized Controlled Trial Abnormal Burnout of Nurses in Crisis; Double Pressure of Low Support and Competence Psychometric Assessment of Infant Colic Scale in Iranian Population Novel Memories of Motherhood: Childbirth Lived Experiences of Mothers with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1