AIMS: Vascular access site complications following transradial coronary procedures are less common and severe compared to femoral approach. Radial artery occlusion is considered the main adverse effect. As radial access is gaining more acknowledgement, complication awareness, and understanding is important. The aim was to assess complication rates following transradial coronary procedures and to compare two radial compression devices in a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-nine patients were randomized to radial compression with a new device (RY Stop, n = 248) or the reference device (TR Band, n = 251) following transradial coronary procedures. Radial artery occlusion persistent at 90 days was the primary endpoint. Discomfort and accounts of vascular complications at access site were secondary endpoints. Radial artery occlusion was observed in 5% (n = 26) for the entire cohort with no difference between groups (RY Stop 6% vs. TR Band 5%; P = 0.69). Patients overall reported low levels of discomfort and the median scores were similar in both groups; RY Stop: 7 vs. TR Band: 10 (P = 0.90). There were few incidents of bleeding (7%), however, they were significantly more frequent with the RY Stop (12%) than with the TR Band (3%; P = 0.001). Few patients (4%) developed access site haematomas, and the incidence was similar in the two groups (P = 0.98). CONCLUSION: We observed a radial artery occlusion rate of 5% at 90 days post-procedure. Access site discomfort and vascular complication rates were low. Overall, the RY Stop compression device was not inferior to the TR Band except occurrences of bleeding. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Vascular access site complications following transradial coronary procedures are less common and severe compared to femoral approach. Radial artery occlusion is considered the main adverse effect. As radial access is gaining more acknowledgement, complication awareness, and understanding is important. The aim was to assess complication rates following transradial coronary procedures and to compare two radial compression devices in a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-nine patients were randomized to radial compression with a new device (RY Stop, n = 248) or the reference device (TR Band, n = 251) following transradial coronary procedures. Radial artery occlusion persistent at 90 days was the primary endpoint. Discomfort and accounts of vascular complications at access site were secondary endpoints. Radial artery occlusion was observed in 5% (n = 26) for the entire cohort with no difference between groups (RY Stop 6% vs. TR Band 5%; P = 0.69). Patients overall reported low levels of discomfort and the median scores were similar in both groups; RY Stop: 7 vs. TR Band: 10 (P = 0.90). There were few incidents of bleeding (7%), however, they were significantly more frequent with the RY Stop (12%) than with the TR Band (3%; P = 0.001). Few patients (4%) developed access site haematomas, and the incidence was similar in the two groups (P = 0.98). CONCLUSION: We observed a radial artery occlusion rate of 5% at 90 days post-procedure. Access site discomfort and vascular complication rates were low. Overall, the RY Stop compression device was not inferior to the TR Band except occurrences of bleeding. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.