A comparison of 2 devices for radial artery hemostasis after transradial coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Transradial access is an attractive approach for angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention. Different devices have been used to apply pressure locally at the site of arterial entry for achieving hemostasis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of 2 different hemostatic devices on radial artery outcomes after transradial coronary intervention. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study included 600 patients who had undergone transradial coronary intervention who were randomized into 2 groups after the procedure: 300 were treated with a radial compression device (TR Band, Terumo Medical, Tokyo, Japan) (CD group) and the other 300 patients were treated using a chitosan-based pad (Anscare, Daxon, Taoyuan, Taiwan) (CS group). Compression time, major and minor access site bleeding complications, and incidence of radial artery occlusion were recorded. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in the baseline clinical characteristics of the patients between the 2 groups. Compression time in the CS group was significantly shorter than that in the CD group (P < .001). Although no major access site bleeding complications were observed in either group, 6 patients in each group experienced minor access site bleeding complications. At the same time, 61 patients in the CD group and 21 patients in the CS group experienced errhysis (20% vs 7%, respectively; P < .001). Early radial artery occlusion (24 hours) occurred in 11.7% of the patients in the CD group and 5.4% of the patients in the CS group (P < .05). Chronic radial artery occlusion (30 days) occurred in 10% of the patients in the CD group and 5% of the patients in the CS group (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The application of the chitosan-based pad showed better hemostatic efficacy and a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion after transradial coronary intervention compared with the compression device.