SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology / 2021 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 6

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

Jahanzeb MALİK
Hesham NAEEM
Nismat JAVED
Pages
402–406
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Novel hemostasis strategies, including PreludeSYNC DISTAL, Merit Medical Systems, Inc.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients with an arterial diameter of 0.490).
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

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 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.

🔖

Cite This Article

MALİK, J., NAEEM, H., JAVED, N. (2021). A comparative study of Terumo radial Band® and PreludeSYNC hemostasis compression device after transradial coronary catheterization. The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 6, 402–406. https://ajindex.com/articles/366643

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, Thuesen L, Kelbaek H, Thayssen P, et al.
  2. DANAMI-2 Investigators. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003
  3. 733–42. [Crossref] 2. Grines CL, Westerhausen DR Jr, Grines LL, Hanlon JT, Logemann TL, Niemela M, et al.
  4. Air PAMI Study Group. 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002
  5. 1713–9. [Crossref] 3. Sandhu K, Butler R, Nolan J. Expert Opinion: Transradial Coronary Artery Procedures: Tips for Success. Interv Cardiol 2017
  6. 18–24. [Crossref] 4. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, Niemelä K, Xavier D, Widimsky P, et al.
  7. RIVAL trial group. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 2011
  8. 1409–20. [Crossref] 5. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, Zaro T, et al.
  9. MATRIX Investigators. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2015
  10. 2465–76. [Crossref] 6. Sadaka MA, Etman W, Ahmed W, Kandil S, Eltahan S. Incidence and predictors of radial artery occlusion after transradial coronary catheterization. Egypt Heart J 2019
  11. [Crossref] 7. Saito S, Ikei H, Hosokawa G, Tanaka S. Influence of the ratio between radial artery inner diameter and sheath outer diameter on radial artery flow after transradial coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 1999
  12. 173–8. [Crossref] 8. Voon V, AyyazUlHaq M, Cahill C, Mannix K, Ahern C, Hennessy T, et al. Randomized study comparing incidence of radial artery occlusion post-percutaneous coronary intervention between two conventional compression devices using a novel air-inflation technique. World J Cardiol 2017
  13. 807–12. [Crossref] 9. Pancholy S, Coppola J, Patel T, Roke-Thomas M. Prevention of radial artery occlusion-patent hemostasis evaluation trial (PROPHET study): a randomized comparison of traditional versus patency documented hemostasis after transradial catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008
  14. 335–40. [Crossref] 10. Roberts JS, Niu J, Pastor-Cervantes JA. Comparison of Hemostasis Times With a Kaolin-Based Hemostatic Pad (QuikClot Radial) vs Mechan