Farshad Roghani-Dehkordi1, Elham Zangeneh2, Mohammad Kermani-Alghoraishi1. 1. Interventional Cardiology Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences; Isfahan-Iran. 2. Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences; Isfahan-Iran.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Distal radial artery access or trans-snuffbox access (TSA) is a novel, safe, and feasible technique for coronary artery interventions wherein its vascular hemostasis is still concerned. So, this study aimed to compare two homeostasis methods comprising manual and mechanical compression approaches in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) via TSA. METHODS: In a prospective nonrandomized clinical trial, a total of 80 patients undergoing diagnostic CAG by TSA were divided into two equal groups: manual compression and mechanical compression (using radial TR band), the main end point of which was primary hemostasis time. Other variables were patient satisfaction, puncture site pain severity, hospitalization time, and local neurovascular complication during the 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 57.1±8.0 years, with 40 of them (54.1%) being male. The primary hemostasis time was significantly shorter in the manual compression approach [15.0±5.9 minutes with median 15 (9-20)] than in the TR band group [25.7±4.9 minutes with median 25 (20-30)] (p<0.001). No significant difference was noted in the patient's satisfaction and puncture site pain severity as well as hospitalization time between the two methods (p>0.050). The neurovascular complication, including hematoma, numbness, and dRA occlusion, rates had also no significant difference between the two groups (p>0.050). CONCLUSION: The manual compression approach on the puncture site reduces hemostasis time in patients undergoing CAG via TSA when compared with the mechanical compression method.
OBJECTIVE: Distal radial artery access or trans-snuffbox access (TSA) is a novel, safe, and feasible technique for coronary artery interventions wherein its vascular hemostasis is still concerned. So, this study aimed to compare two homeostasis methods comprising manual and mechanical compression approaches in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) via TSA. METHODS: In a prospective nonrandomized clinical trial, a total of 80 patients undergoing diagnostic CAG by TSA were divided into two equal groups: manual compression and mechanical compression (using radial TR band), the main end point of which was primary hemostasis time. Other variables were patient satisfaction, puncture site pain severity, hospitalization time, and local neurovascular complication during the 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 57.1±8.0 years, with 40 of them (54.1%) being male. The primary hemostasis time was significantly shorter in the manual compression approach [15.0±5.9 minutes with median 15 (9-20)] than in the TR band group [25.7±4.9 minutes with median 25 (20-30)] (p<0.001). No significant difference was noted in the patient's satisfaction and puncture site pain severity as well as hospitalization time between the two methods (p>0.050). The neurovascular complication, including hematoma, numbness, and dRA occlusion, rates had also no significant difference between the two groups (p>0.050). CONCLUSION: The manual compression approach on the puncture site reduces hemostasis time in patients undergoing CAG via TSA when compared with the mechanical compression method.
Authors: Franz-Josef Neumann; Miguel Sousa-Uva; Anders Ahlsson; Fernando Alfonso; Adrian P Banning; Umberto Benedetto; Robert A Byrne; Jean-Philippe Collet; Volkmar Falk; Stuart J Head; Peter Jüni; Adnan Kastrati; Akos Koller; Steen D Kristensen; Josef Niebauer; Dimitrios J Richter; Petar M Seferovic; Dirk Sibbing; Giulio G Stefanini; Stephan Windecker; Rashmi Yadav; Michael O Zembala Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Olivier F Bertrand; Robert De Larochellière; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Guy Proulx; Onil Gleeton; Can Manh Nguyen; Jean-Pierre Déry; Gérald Barbeau; Bernard Noël; Eric Larose; Paul Poirier; Louis Roy Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-12-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sanjit S Jolly; Salim Yusuf; John Cairns; Kari Niemelä; Denis Xavier; Petr Widimsky; Andrzej Budaj; Matti Niemelä; Vicent Valentin; Basil S Lewis; Alvaro Avezum; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Sunil V Rao; Peggy Gao; Rizwan Afzal; Campbell D Joyner; Susan Chrolavicius; Shamir R Mehta Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Chirag Bavishi; Sadik R Panwar; George D Dangas; Nitin Barman; Choudhury M Hasan; Usman Baber; Annapoorna S Kini; Samin K Sharma Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Ahmed A Kolkailah; Rabah S Alreshq; Ahmed M Muhammed; Mohamed E Zahran; Marwah Anas El-Wegoud; Ashraf F Nabhan Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-04-18
Authors: Yongcheol Kim; Youngkeun Ahn; Inna Kim; Doo Hwan Lee; Min Chul Kim; Doo Sun Sim; Young Joon Hong; Ju Han Kim; Myung Ho Jeong Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 3.243