Objective: Transradial coronary catheterization has proved to be safe and effective in clinical practice. Various hemostatic compressive devices have been used in subsequent procedures. The objective of this study was...Objective: Transradial coronary catheterization has proved to be safe and effective in clinical practice. Various hemostatic compressive devices have been used in subsequent procedures. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a new hemostatic compression device and the widely used TR Band. Methods: A total of 118 patients were divided randomly into two groups: TR Band and the new hemostatic compression device. Efficacy of hemostasis, patient comfort, local vascular dysfunction, and radial artery occlusion(RAO) were evaluated and compared between groups. Results: Occurrence of errhysis or hematoma did not significantly differ between groups(13.6% vs. 11.9%, P = 0.782). Fewer patients had moderate to severe pain or moderate to severe numbness in the new hemostatic compression device group(1.7% vs. 22.0%; 1.7% vs. 18.6%, respectively). Pulse loss between distal artery and device was lower in the new hemostatic compression device group(5.1% vs. 22.0%, P = 0.007), and fewer patients experienced obstruction of venous reflux compared with the TR Band group(6.8% vs. 25.4%, P = 0.006). Combined incidence of RAO at discharge was 7.6%, and was lower in the new hemostatic compression device group(1.7% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.015). In contrast to the TR Band, application of the new hemostatic compression device was independently associated with lower incidence of RAO at discharge(odds ratio: 0.062, 95% confidence interval: 0.006–0.675, P = 0.022). Conclusions: Both the new hemostatic compression device and the TR Band can efficiently achieve hemostasis following transradial coronary catheterization. However, fewer patients felt discomfort with application of the new hemostatic compression device. Pulse loss in the artery distal to the compression device, obstruction of venous reflux, and RAO occurred significantly less often with application of the new device.展开更多
BACKGROUND The traditional radial approach(RA)is recommended as the standard method for coronary angiography(CAG),while a distal RA(DRA)has been recently used for CAG.AIM To assess the efficacy and safety of the DRA v...BACKGROUND The traditional radial approach(RA)is recommended as the standard method for coronary angiography(CAG),while a distal RA(DRA)has been recently used for CAG.AIM To assess the efficacy and safety of the DRA vs RA during CAG.METHODS The following databases were searched through December 2020:MEDLINE,the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,EMBASE,the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal,and Clinical-Trials.gov.Individual randomized-controlled trials for adult patients undergoing cardiac catheterization were included.The primary outcomes were the successful cannulation rate and the incidence of radial artery spasm(RAS)and radial artery occlusion(RAO).Study selection,data abstraction and quality assessment were independently performed using the Grading of Recommendations,Assessment,Development,and Evaluation approach.RESULTS Three randomized control trials and 13 registered trials were identified.The two approaches showed similar successful cannulation rates[risk ratio(RR)0.90,95%confidence interval(CI):0.72-1.13].The DRA did not decrease RAS(RR 0.43,95%CI:0.08-2.49)and RAO(RR 0.48,95%CI:0.18-1.29).Patients with the DRA had a shorter hemostasis time in comparison to those with the RA(mean difference-6.64,95%CI:-10.37 to-2.90).The evidence of certainty was low.CONCLUSION For CAG,the DRA would be safer than the RA with comparable cannulation rates.Given the limited data,additional research,including studies with standard protocols,is necessary.展开更多
Objective: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via the radial artery access has more advantages than that of femoral artery access, while radial or (and) brachial artery have tendency to be spasmodic. We sought t...Objective: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via the radial artery access has more advantages than that of femoral artery access, while radial or (and) brachial artery have tendency to be spasmodic. We sought to investigate the effectiveness and safety of guiding catheter crossing over spasmodic radial or (and) brachial artery segments by the aid of PCI wire and balloon compared with traditional anti-spasmodic approach. Methods: The clinical data of 168 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) (group A), whose PCI was performed via radial artery access with radial or (and) brachial artery spasm or (and) dissection and guiding catheter passing through spasmodic segments successfully by the aid of PCI guiding wire and balloon were analyzed retrospectively, simultaneously, the other 73 patients (group B) who used conventional approach to cross over the spasmodic radial or (and) brachial artery segments were treated as the control. The success rate, the time consumption and the complication were compared between the two groups. Findings: There was no significant difference in the spasmodic site between the two groups (all p value > 0.05). The success rate in group A was significantly higher than that in group B (168(100%) vs 28 (38.4%), p (4.2%) vs 14 (19.2%), p Conclusions: It is more effective and safer for guiding catheter crossing over spasmodic or (and) dissected radial or (and) brachial artery segments by the aid of PCI guiding wire and balloon than using the routine approach of administration of anti-spasm drugs for trans-radial PCI.展开更多
Despite widespread use of arterial catheters, there is remarkably little described about their stabilization in the literature. A brief review of arterial catheterization techniques is included. The fixation technique...Despite widespread use of arterial catheters, there is remarkably little described about their stabilization in the literature. A brief review of arterial catheterization techniques is included. The fixation techniques described in the literature and in commercial product information are essentially to tape or suture the arterial catheter flat against the skin. Often the wrist is immobilized in the dorsiflexed position to prevent kinking or dislodging of the catheter. We describe a simple device made from a gauze pad and tape to elevate and protect the arterial line while minimizing its kinking during wrist flexion.展开更多
目的针对开展超声引导下桡动脉穿刺置管术的ICU危重症患者,施行优化护理措施,评价其护理效果。方法方便选取2021年1月—2023年1月厦门市苏颂医院重症加强护理病房(Intensive Care Unit,ICU)危重症患者80例为研究对象。以盲选法为分组依...目的针对开展超声引导下桡动脉穿刺置管术的ICU危重症患者,施行优化护理措施,评价其护理效果。方法方便选取2021年1月—2023年1月厦门市苏颂医院重症加强护理病房(Intensive Care Unit,ICU)危重症患者80例为研究对象。以盲选法为分组依据,对照组40例、观察组40例。所有患者均开展超声引导下桡动脉穿刺置管术,对照组接受常规护理措施,观察组接受优化护理措施。统计两组的穿刺成功次数情况、术后并发症发生情况、护理满意度情况、穿刺效果相关指标。结果观察组穿刺一次成功率为87.50%,高于对照组的50.00%,穿刺两次及以上成功率为12.50%,低于对照组的47.50%,差异有统计学意义(χ^(2)=13.091、11.667,P均<0.05)。与对照组相比,观察组穿刺时间更短,穿刺次数更少,护理后的生活质量评分、疾病知识掌握程度评分更高,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。结论针对开展超声引导下桡动脉穿刺置管术的ICU危重症患者,施行优化护理措施,能够提升穿刺一次成功率,降低并发症发生率,提高知识掌握率,提高生活质量。展开更多
AIM To compare post-percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) radial artery occlusion(RAO) incidence between two conventional radial artery compression devices using a novel air-inflation technique.METHODS One hundred c...AIM To compare post-percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) radial artery occlusion(RAO) incidence between two conventional radial artery compression devices using a novel air-inflation technique.METHODS One hundred consecutive patients post-PCI were randomized 1:1 to Safeguard or TR band compression devices. Post-radial sheath removal, each compression device was inflated with additional 2 m L of air above index bleeding point during air-filled device application and gradually down-titrated accordingly. RAO was defined as absence of Doppler flow signal performed at 24 h and at 6 wk post-PCI. Patients with missing data were excluded. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.RESULTS All patients had 6 F radial sheath inserted. No significant differences were observed between Safeguard Radial(n = 42) vs TR band(n = 42) in terms of age(63 ± 11 years vs 67 ± 11 years), clinical presentation(electives, n = 18 vs n = 16; acute coronary syndrome, n = 24 vs n = 26) and total procedural heparin(7778 ± 2704 IU vs 7825 ± 2450 IU). RAO incidence was not significantly different between groups at 24 h(2% vs 0%, P = 0.32) and 6 wk(0%, both).CONCLUSION Safeguard Radial and TR band did not demonstrate significant between-group differences in short-term RAO incidence. Lack of evidence of RAO in all postPCI patients at 6 wk follow-up, regardless of radial compression device indicate advantage of using the novel and pragmatic air-inflation technique. Further work is required to more accurately confirm these findings.展开更多
Background: Transradial coronary angiography has established itself as safe alternative to transfemoral approach. Today, the artery of approach lies completely on the operator’s choice. The Right Radial Approach (RRA...Background: Transradial coronary angiography has established itself as safe alternative to transfemoral approach. Today, the artery of approach lies completely on the operator’s choice. The Right Radial Approach (RRA) has been a favorite for most of the interventional cardiologists due to the convenience in operating from the right side. The Left Radial Approach (LRA) has always been a neglected route. LRA does have many advantages over the right, the vascular anatomy being one of them. The aim of our study was to compare the right radial approach of diagnostic coronary angiography with left radial approach. Method: A total of 70 cases of Coronary Angiography (CAG) with normal Allen test and satisfying the inclusion criteria were prospectively observed and studied after randomly assigning them into two equal groups, LRA (Left Radial Approach) n = 35 and RRA (Right Radial Approach) n = 35. Multipurpose TIG (Tiger) catheter was used in both the approaches to catheterize the right as well as left coronary artery. Results: The access time, catheter manipulation time, procedure time, amount of contrast used, hospital stay, intensity of pain experienced, cost of the procedure and quality of coronary angiogram observed were statistically insignificant while the fluoroscopy time was slightly statistically significant which was independent to catheter manipulation time. Conclusions: The neglected Left Radial Approach to coronary angiography is as efficacious, safe and cost effective with reduction in arterial spasm complications when compared to the Right Radial Approach performed by multipurpose Tiger catheter.展开更多
<strong>Background: </strong><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Radial artery catheterization is a fundamental approach that is used as a procedural access in the different catheterization ...<strong>Background: </strong><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Radial artery catheterization is a fundamental approach that is used as a procedural access in the different catheterization laboratories so our study is a</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">compari</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">s</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">on between distal radial artery approach and convential traditional transradial approach to explore the fesibility and safety of coronary angiography and percutanous coronary. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Aim of the Work: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The purpose of our study is a comparison between the conventional transradial approach versus distal transradial approach for diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Materials and Methods: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">This </span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">is </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">a</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">prospective study that included 60 patients who presented to the Cardiology departments in Ahmed Maher</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Teaching Hospital from December 2018 until October 2019 to perform planned Transradial Coronary Angiography and/or coronary intervention</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">.</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">T</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">he study </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">is </span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">divided into two groups, group (A) included 30 patients who undergone the procedure through the distal radial approach (The Anatomical Snuffbox)</span><b></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">and group (B) included 30 patients who undergone the procedure through the traditional Transradial approach. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Results: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Thrombosis and hospital stay are higher significant in radial group than distal radial group and patient satisfaction is higher significant in distal radial group than traditional Transradial while there is no significant difference between both groups as regard Success and failure rate of cannulation, bleeding, </span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">i</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">nfection and duration of the procedure. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Conclusion: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">coronary procedures by distal radial approach have minor access complication versus the conventional Transradial approach.</span></span>展开更多
基金provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(81500335)
文摘Objective: Transradial coronary catheterization has proved to be safe and effective in clinical practice. Various hemostatic compressive devices have been used in subsequent procedures. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a new hemostatic compression device and the widely used TR Band. Methods: A total of 118 patients were divided randomly into two groups: TR Band and the new hemostatic compression device. Efficacy of hemostasis, patient comfort, local vascular dysfunction, and radial artery occlusion(RAO) were evaluated and compared between groups. Results: Occurrence of errhysis or hematoma did not significantly differ between groups(13.6% vs. 11.9%, P = 0.782). Fewer patients had moderate to severe pain or moderate to severe numbness in the new hemostatic compression device group(1.7% vs. 22.0%; 1.7% vs. 18.6%, respectively). Pulse loss between distal artery and device was lower in the new hemostatic compression device group(5.1% vs. 22.0%, P = 0.007), and fewer patients experienced obstruction of venous reflux compared with the TR Band group(6.8% vs. 25.4%, P = 0.006). Combined incidence of RAO at discharge was 7.6%, and was lower in the new hemostatic compression device group(1.7% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.015). In contrast to the TR Band, application of the new hemostatic compression device was independently associated with lower incidence of RAO at discharge(odds ratio: 0.062, 95% confidence interval: 0.006–0.675, P = 0.022). Conclusions: Both the new hemostatic compression device and the TR Band can efficiently achieve hemostasis following transradial coronary catheterization. However, fewer patients felt discomfort with application of the new hemostatic compression device. Pulse loss in the artery distal to the compression device, obstruction of venous reflux, and RAO occurred significantly less often with application of the new device.
文摘BACKGROUND The traditional radial approach(RA)is recommended as the standard method for coronary angiography(CAG),while a distal RA(DRA)has been recently used for CAG.AIM To assess the efficacy and safety of the DRA vs RA during CAG.METHODS The following databases were searched through December 2020:MEDLINE,the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,EMBASE,the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal,and Clinical-Trials.gov.Individual randomized-controlled trials for adult patients undergoing cardiac catheterization were included.The primary outcomes were the successful cannulation rate and the incidence of radial artery spasm(RAS)and radial artery occlusion(RAO).Study selection,data abstraction and quality assessment were independently performed using the Grading of Recommendations,Assessment,Development,and Evaluation approach.RESULTS Three randomized control trials and 13 registered trials were identified.The two approaches showed similar successful cannulation rates[risk ratio(RR)0.90,95%confidence interval(CI):0.72-1.13].The DRA did not decrease RAS(RR 0.43,95%CI:0.08-2.49)and RAO(RR 0.48,95%CI:0.18-1.29).Patients with the DRA had a shorter hemostasis time in comparison to those with the RA(mean difference-6.64,95%CI:-10.37 to-2.90).The evidence of certainty was low.CONCLUSION For CAG,the DRA would be safer than the RA with comparable cannulation rates.Given the limited data,additional research,including studies with standard protocols,is necessary.
文摘Objective: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via the radial artery access has more advantages than that of femoral artery access, while radial or (and) brachial artery have tendency to be spasmodic. We sought to investigate the effectiveness and safety of guiding catheter crossing over spasmodic radial or (and) brachial artery segments by the aid of PCI wire and balloon compared with traditional anti-spasmodic approach. Methods: The clinical data of 168 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) (group A), whose PCI was performed via radial artery access with radial or (and) brachial artery spasm or (and) dissection and guiding catheter passing through spasmodic segments successfully by the aid of PCI guiding wire and balloon were analyzed retrospectively, simultaneously, the other 73 patients (group B) who used conventional approach to cross over the spasmodic radial or (and) brachial artery segments were treated as the control. The success rate, the time consumption and the complication were compared between the two groups. Findings: There was no significant difference in the spasmodic site between the two groups (all p value > 0.05). The success rate in group A was significantly higher than that in group B (168(100%) vs 28 (38.4%), p (4.2%) vs 14 (19.2%), p Conclusions: It is more effective and safer for guiding catheter crossing over spasmodic or (and) dissected radial or (and) brachial artery segments by the aid of PCI guiding wire and balloon than using the routine approach of administration of anti-spasm drugs for trans-radial PCI.
文摘Despite widespread use of arterial catheters, there is remarkably little described about their stabilization in the literature. A brief review of arterial catheterization techniques is included. The fixation techniques described in the literature and in commercial product information are essentially to tape or suture the arterial catheter flat against the skin. Often the wrist is immobilized in the dorsiflexed position to prevent kinking or dislodging of the catheter. We describe a simple device made from a gauze pad and tape to elevate and protect the arterial line while minimizing its kinking during wrist flexion.
文摘目的针对开展超声引导下桡动脉穿刺置管术的ICU危重症患者,施行优化护理措施,评价其护理效果。方法方便选取2021年1月—2023年1月厦门市苏颂医院重症加强护理病房(Intensive Care Unit,ICU)危重症患者80例为研究对象。以盲选法为分组依据,对照组40例、观察组40例。所有患者均开展超声引导下桡动脉穿刺置管术,对照组接受常规护理措施,观察组接受优化护理措施。统计两组的穿刺成功次数情况、术后并发症发生情况、护理满意度情况、穿刺效果相关指标。结果观察组穿刺一次成功率为87.50%,高于对照组的50.00%,穿刺两次及以上成功率为12.50%,低于对照组的47.50%,差异有统计学意义(χ^(2)=13.091、11.667,P均<0.05)。与对照组相比,观察组穿刺时间更短,穿刺次数更少,护理后的生活质量评分、疾病知识掌握程度评分更高,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。结论针对开展超声引导下桡动脉穿刺置管术的ICU危重症患者,施行优化护理措施,能够提升穿刺一次成功率,降低并发症发生率,提高知识掌握率,提高生活质量。
文摘AIM To compare post-percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) radial artery occlusion(RAO) incidence between two conventional radial artery compression devices using a novel air-inflation technique.METHODS One hundred consecutive patients post-PCI were randomized 1:1 to Safeguard or TR band compression devices. Post-radial sheath removal, each compression device was inflated with additional 2 m L of air above index bleeding point during air-filled device application and gradually down-titrated accordingly. RAO was defined as absence of Doppler flow signal performed at 24 h and at 6 wk post-PCI. Patients with missing data were excluded. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.RESULTS All patients had 6 F radial sheath inserted. No significant differences were observed between Safeguard Radial(n = 42) vs TR band(n = 42) in terms of age(63 ± 11 years vs 67 ± 11 years), clinical presentation(electives, n = 18 vs n = 16; acute coronary syndrome, n = 24 vs n = 26) and total procedural heparin(7778 ± 2704 IU vs 7825 ± 2450 IU). RAO incidence was not significantly different between groups at 24 h(2% vs 0%, P = 0.32) and 6 wk(0%, both).CONCLUSION Safeguard Radial and TR band did not demonstrate significant between-group differences in short-term RAO incidence. Lack of evidence of RAO in all postPCI patients at 6 wk follow-up, regardless of radial compression device indicate advantage of using the novel and pragmatic air-inflation technique. Further work is required to more accurately confirm these findings.
文摘Background: Transradial coronary angiography has established itself as safe alternative to transfemoral approach. Today, the artery of approach lies completely on the operator’s choice. The Right Radial Approach (RRA) has been a favorite for most of the interventional cardiologists due to the convenience in operating from the right side. The Left Radial Approach (LRA) has always been a neglected route. LRA does have many advantages over the right, the vascular anatomy being one of them. The aim of our study was to compare the right radial approach of diagnostic coronary angiography with left radial approach. Method: A total of 70 cases of Coronary Angiography (CAG) with normal Allen test and satisfying the inclusion criteria were prospectively observed and studied after randomly assigning them into two equal groups, LRA (Left Radial Approach) n = 35 and RRA (Right Radial Approach) n = 35. Multipurpose TIG (Tiger) catheter was used in both the approaches to catheterize the right as well as left coronary artery. Results: The access time, catheter manipulation time, procedure time, amount of contrast used, hospital stay, intensity of pain experienced, cost of the procedure and quality of coronary angiogram observed were statistically insignificant while the fluoroscopy time was slightly statistically significant which was independent to catheter manipulation time. Conclusions: The neglected Left Radial Approach to coronary angiography is as efficacious, safe and cost effective with reduction in arterial spasm complications when compared to the Right Radial Approach performed by multipurpose Tiger catheter.
文摘<strong>Background: </strong><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Radial artery catheterization is a fundamental approach that is used as a procedural access in the different catheterization laboratories so our study is a</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">compari</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">s</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">on between distal radial artery approach and convential traditional transradial approach to explore the fesibility and safety of coronary angiography and percutanous coronary. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Aim of the Work: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The purpose of our study is a comparison between the conventional transradial approach versus distal transradial approach for diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Materials and Methods: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">This </span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">is </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">a</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">prospective study that included 60 patients who presented to the Cardiology departments in Ahmed Maher</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Teaching Hospital from December 2018 until October 2019 to perform planned Transradial Coronary Angiography and/or coronary intervention</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">.</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">T</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">he study </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">is </span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">divided into two groups, group (A) included 30 patients who undergone the procedure through the distal radial approach (The Anatomical Snuffbox)</span><b></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">and group (B) included 30 patients who undergone the procedure through the traditional Transradial approach. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Results: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Thrombosis and hospital stay are higher significant in radial group than distal radial group and patient satisfaction is higher significant in distal radial group than traditional Transradial while there is no significant difference between both groups as regard Success and failure rate of cannulation, bleeding, </span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">i</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">nfection and duration of the procedure. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Conclusion: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">coronary procedures by distal radial approach have minor access complication versus the conventional Transradial approach.</span></span>