Literature DB >> 34100727

A comparative study of Terumo radial Band® and PreludeSYNC hemostasis compression device after transradial coronary catheterization.

Jahanzeb Malik1, Nismat Javed2, Hesham Naeem1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Novel hemostasis strategies, including PreludeSYNC DISTAL, Merit Medical Systems, Inc. South Jordan, UT, USA (PSD) radial compression device for distal radial artery (DRA) access, have been described for radial access protocols. This study aimed to compare the safety profile of PSD and Terumo radial (TR) Band®.
METHODS: This prospective interventional study was conducted on patients who underwent coronary interventions via either the DRA or forearm radial artery (FRA). Patients with an arterial diameter of <2 mm, requiring dialysis, with unstable acute coronary syndrome, failed radial cannulation, and sheath insertion were excluded. PSD and TR Band® were used for hemostasis after DRA and FRA access, respectively. The time to hemostasis and complications, including minor/major hematoma, radial artery occlusion (RAO), and neurological symptoms (after 20 days) were recorded. The mean and standard deviation were calculated for age and hemostasis duration. Frequency and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. Independent t-test and Chi-squared test were performed to determine the significance of the differences between the two groups. A p-value of <0.05 was significant.
RESULTS: Of 139 participants, TR Band® and PSD were used in 76 and 63 patients, respectively. The mean age of the participants was 58.70±10.00 years, and the majority of the patients were men (67.60%). The hemostasis time of both devices was similar (p>0.490). Compared with PSD, TR Band® had more complications (52.63% vs. 23.81%; p=0.020), particularly RAO [odds ratio (OR), 3.17; p=0.018] and neurological problems (OR, 5.33; p=0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: Although, PSD seems safer in patients with coronary interventions, the device should further be explored in crossover trials for the two access types to determine the overall safety profile.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34100727      PMCID: PMC8210938          DOI: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2020.34694

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol        ISSN: 2149-2263            Impact factor:   1.596


  19 in total

1.  A randomized comparison of TR band and radistop hemostatic compression devices after transradial coronary intervention.

Authors:  Sudhir Rathore; Rodney H Stables; Maheshwar Pauriah; Abdul Hakeem; Joseph D Mills; Nick D Palmer; Raphael A Perry; John L Morris
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2010-11-01       Impact factor: 2.692

2.  A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study.

Authors:  F Kiemeneij; G J Laarman; D Odekerken; T Slagboom; R van der Wieken
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Comparison of Hemostasis Times With a Kaolin-Based Hemostatic Pad (QuikClot Radial) vs Mechanical Compression (TR Band) Following Transradial Access: A Pilot Prospective Study.

Authors:  Jonathan S Roberts; Jianli Niu; Juan A Pastor-Cervantes
Journal:  J Invasive Cardiol       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 2.022

4.  A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction: the Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction study.

Authors:  Cindy L Grines; Donald R Westerhausen; Lorelei L Grines; J Timothy Hanlon; Timothy L Logemann; Matti Niemela; W Douglas Weaver; Marianne Graham; Judith Boura; William W O'Neill; Carlos Balestrini
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2002-06-05       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Neurologic complications after transradial or transfemoral approach for diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization: A propensity score analysis of 16,710 cases from a single centre prospective registry.

Authors:  Luis Raposo; Sérgio Madeira; Rui Campante Teles; Miguel Santos; Henrique Mesquita Gabriel; Pedro Gonçalves; João Brito; Silvio Leal; Manuel Almeida; Miguel Mendes
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  A comparison of 2 devices for radial artery hemostasis after transradial coronary intervention.

Authors:  Neng Dai; Da-chun Xu; Lei Hou; Wen-hui Peng; Yi-dong Wei; Ya-wei Xu
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Nurs       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.083

7.  Prevention of radial artery occlusion-patent hemostasis evaluation trial (PROPHET study): a randomized comparison of traditional versus patency documented hemostasis after transradial catheterization.

Authors:  Samir Pancholy; John Coppola; Tejas Patel; Marie Roke-Thomas
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2008-09-01       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Impact of two different hemostatic devices on radial artery outcomes after transradial catheterization.

Authors:  Samir B Pancholy
Journal:  J Invasive Cardiol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.022

9.  Randomized study comparing incidence of radial artery occlusion post-percutaneous coronary intervention between two conventional compression devices using a novel air-inflation technique.

Authors:  Victor Voon; Muhammad AyyazUlHaq; Ciara Cahill; Kirsten Mannix; Catriona Ahern; Terence Hennessy; Thomas Kiernan
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2017-11-26

10.  Incidence and predictors of radial artery occlusion after transradial coronary catheterization.

Authors:  Mohamed A Sadaka; Waleed Etman; Walid Ahmed; Saeed Kandil; Salah Eltahan
Journal:  Egypt Heart J       Date:  2019-09-05
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Advancement in Coronary Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using the Distal Transradial Artery Access in Acute Coronary Syndrome and Complex Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Gang Cao; Hua-Xiu Cai; Jun Cao
Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 1.475

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.