Why the study?
Does the use of wristband devices improve radial artery patency compared to conventional compressive dressings in patients undergoing coronary procedures via radial access?
Population
528 consecutive patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention through…
Comparison
Wristband devices for radial artery hemostasis vs Conventional compressive dressings (n=416)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
7 days
Key result
Wristband devices for radial artery hemostasis did not significantly improve radial artery patency rates at 7 days compared to conventional compressive dressings (7.1% vs. 3.8%; p=0.20).
Authors
Loading...
Wristband devices do not support improved patency after radial access; leaves open any bleeding benefit pending randomized trials.
Observational (n=528)
Yes
Does the use of wristband devices improve radial artery patency compared to conventional compressive dressings in patients undergoing coronary procedures via radial access?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.1% vs 3.8%
p-value: p=0.20
The use of wristband devices for radial artery hemostasis does not result in higher rates of late arterial patency when compared to conventional compressive dressings, though it may reduce early minor bleeding.
Neto et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (n=528). Wristband devices vs. Conventional compressive dressings was evaluated on Patency of the radial artery on the 7th day after the procedure, measured by Doppler (p=0.20). Wristband devices for radial artery hemostasis did not significantly improve radial artery patency rates at 7 days compared to conventional compressive dressings (7.1% vs. 3.8%; p=0.20).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: