Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Objective: To compare the complications between closure device and manual compression in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention through femoral access site. Study Design: Comparative cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology, from Mar to Nov 2021. Methodology: Eighty patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention through the femoral access site during the study period were recruited in this analysis. Patients were randomly divided into two groups for the procedure adopted for hemostasis after percutaneous coronary intervention. Group-A underwent manual compression of the femoral access site, while hemostasis in Group-B was achieved with the help of a closure device. Hematoma formation, pseudo-aneurysm, AV fistula and bleeding were compared in both groups.Results: Eighty patients participated in this analysis. Of them, 50(62.5%) were male and 30(37.5%) were female. The mean age of patients was 48.85±8.93 years. In 35(43.75%) patients, hemostasis was achieved by manual compression (Group-A), while in 45(56.25%) patients, by vascular compression device (Group-B). Both groups did not differ statistically significantly in Hematoma formation, AV fistula formation, bleeding, and pseudo-aneurysm formation (p-value: 0.05).Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in the complications studied among the closure device method and manual compression of hemostasis in PCI through femoral vein access.
Rehman et al. (Mon,) studied this question.