Jiang Y, Liu J, Peng W, Wang A, Guo L, Xu Z. Comparison of invasive blood pressure monitoring versus normal non-invasive blood pressure monitoring in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with percutaneous coronary intervention.
Injury 2022;
53:1108-1113. [PMID:
34973831 DOI:
10.1016/j.injury.2021.12.025]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2021] [Accepted: 12/13/2021] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Hypotension post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) causes stent thrombosis and reduced coronary perfusion, which aggravate myocardial ischemia and lead to patient death. Therefore, the accuracy and timeliness of blood pressure monitoring (BPM) are crucial for the nursing of patients post PCI. However, it is still controversial whether invasive blood pressure monitoring (IBPM) or non-invasive blood pressure monitoring (NIBPM) should be used for patients post PCI, and the magnitude of their assistance for patients' recovery remains unclear.
METHODS
A randomized controlled trial was performed in this study. 126 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients post PCI were recruited and randomly divided into two groups (NIBPM group n = 63; IBPM group n = 63).
RESULTS
Clinical characteristics and physiological outcomes of participants received different BPM methods were collected and analyzed to compare the effects of these two methods on the nursing of PCI patients. Compared to NIBPM group, IBPM assisted to shorten the time of myocardial ischemia, promote coronary reperfusion, reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular disease and other complications, and ultimately reduce the mortality of patients post PCI.
CONCLUSION
The application of IBPM contributed to reduce the occurrence of complications, shorten the time of vascular reperfusion, and guide treatment of clinicians in time.
Collapse