KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / 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
Sayfa
402–406
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

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 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: Novel hemostasis strategies, including PreludeSYNC DISTAL, Merit Medical Systems, Inc.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Patients with an arterial diameter of 0.490).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı: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.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

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

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (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