ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety between femoral artery compression hemostat and artificial compression after puncture of femoral artery. Methods The clinical data of 125 patients who had underwent puncture of femoral artery were retrospectively analyzed.The patients were divided into 2 group according to the hemostasis:artificial compression hemostasis(68 cases)and femoral artery compression hemostat group (57 cases). The performer operation time, performer operation difficulty score, performer fatigue level score, patient postoperative braking time, patient comfort score and complications of puncture were compared between 2 groups.Results The performer operation time, performer operation difficulty scores, performer fatigue level scores, patient postoperative braking time and patient comfort scores in femoral artery compression hemostat group were significantly better than those in artificial compression hemostasis group:(9.12 ± 3.57)min vs.(28.97 ± 2.85)min,(1.16 ± 0.75) scores vs. (1.59 ± 0.73) scores, (0.68 ± 0.60) scores vs. (2.72 ± 0.46) scores, (8.64 ± 6.02) h vs. (26.10 ± 11.42)h and(2.36 ± 0.57)scores vs.(3.76 ± 0.58)scores,there were statistical differences(P<0.01 or<0.05). There were no statistical difference in puncture sheath tube type, drug using and complications of puncture between two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions Compared with artificial compression after femoral artery puncture,femoral artery compression hemostat can reduce the operation time, shorten the patient braking time, and improve patient comfort, it has a better clinical application prospects.