A randomised controlled study of standard versus accelerated deflation of the Terumo radial band haemostasis device after transradial diagnostic cardiac catheterisation.

BACKGROUND: Radial access is the preferential access route in patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography. We hypothesised that we could reduce hospital stay and improve patient comfort by accelerated deflation of the radial compression device (Terumo radial band). AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare accelerated pressure reduction with a standard Terumo radial band protocol with regard to local bleeding complications and reported pain scores after cardiac catheterisation. METHODS: We performed a single centre prospective randomised trial to compare accelerated care to standard care for patients undergoing diagnostic catheterisation through radial access. Patients in the accelerated care group started deflation after 1 hour, with a 2 ml/10-minute interval. Patients in the standard care group started after 2 hours with additional steps of deflation at 3 and 4 hours. RESULTS: Of the 173 analysed patients 86 received accelerated care and 87 patients standard care. A total of 19 patients had pulsatile bleeding, which occurred similarly in the two groups (standard care 11 vs. accelerated care 8, P=0.47). The time to Terumo radial band removal was on average 129 minutes shorter for accelerated care patients compared to standard care ( P<0.01). At 1 hour after Terumo radial band placement, accelerated care patients more often reported pain scores of 0 than standard care patients (89% vs. 74%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: There was no increase in local bleedings in the accelerated pressure reduction of the Terumo radial band after diagnostic cardiac catheterisation, increasing patient comfort and reducing hospital stay. These findings will further facilitate the widespread implementation of radial access.

Emergency transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic regurgitation and a left ventricle assist device: A case report and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic regurgitation in patients with left ventricle assist devices is a life threatening condition. Here, we consider transcatheter aortic valve implantation as a treatment option. METHODS AND RESULTS: A patient with a left ventricle assist device was presented to us with cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic regurgitation. We successfully implanted a transcatheter aortic valve in emergency setting. The patient recovered and underwent cardiac transplantation three months afterwards. We performed a systematic literature review and identified 10 cases of patients with a left ventricle assist device undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. In these cases, there was no procedural related mortality reported. In four (40%) patients, transcatheter aortic valve implantation resulted in significant paravalvular aortic regurgitation. In two of these cases it was due to migration of the valve towards the left ventricle. CONCLUSIONS: Our case report and review of literature suggests that transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a feasible and lifesaving treatment option for left ventricle assist device patients presenting with severe aortic regurgitation.