Bed Rest Reduction Following Cardiac Catheterizations Using Vascular Closure Devices.

BACKGROUND: Bed rest duration following deployment of a vascular closure device after transfemoral left-sided cardiac catheterization is not standardized. Despite research supporting reduced bed rest, many hospitals require prolonged bed rest. Delayed ambulation is associated with back pain, urine retention, difficulty eating, and longer stay. OBJECTIVE: To study length of stay, safety, and opportunity cost savings of reduced bed rest at a large urban hospital. METHODS: A single-site 12-week study of 1-hour bed rest after transfemoral cardiac catheterizations using vascular closure devices. Results were compared with historical controls treated similarly. RESULTS: The standard bed rest group included 295 patients (207 male, 88 female; mean [SD] age, 64.4 [8.6] years). The early ambulation group included 260 patients (188 male, 72 female; mean [SD] age, 64 [9.3] years). The groups had no significant difference in age (t634 = 1.18, P = .21) or sex (χ12=0.2, P = .64). Three patients in the standard bed rest group and 1 in the early ambulation group had hematomas (P = .36). The stay for diagnostic cardiac catheterizations was longer in the standard bed rest group (mean [SD], 220.7 [55.2] minutes) than in the early ambulation group (mean [SD], 182.1 [78.5] minutes; t196 = 4.06; P < .001). Stay for percutaneous coronary interventions was longer in the standard bed rest group (mean [SD], 400.2 [50.8] minutes) than in the early ambulation group (mean [SD], 381.6 [54.7] minutes; t262 = 2.86; P = .005). CONCLUSION: Reduced bed rest was safe, shortened stays, and improved efficiency by creating opportunity cost savings.

Optimal Hemostatic Band Duration After Transradial Angiography or Intervention: Insights From a Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of hemostatic compression post transradial access is controversial. Longer duration increases the risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) while shorter duration increases the risk of access site bleeding or hematoma. As such, a target of 2 hours is typically used. Whether a shorter or longer duration is better is not known. METHODS: A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials of different duration (<90 minutes, 90 minutes, 2 hours, and 2-4 hours) of hemostasis banding. The efficacy outcome was RAO, primary safety outcome was access site hematoma, and secondary safety outcome was access site rebleeding. Primary analysis compared the effect of various duration in reference to the 2 hours duration using a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 10 randomized clinical trials included with 4911 patients, when compared to the 2-hour reference duration, there was a significantly higher risk of access site hematoma with 90 minutes (odds ratio, 2.39 [95% CI, 1.40-4.06]) and <90 minutes (odds ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 1.79-7.29]) but not with the 2 to 4 hours duration. When compared with the 2-hour reference, there was no significant difference in access site rebleeding or RAO with shorter or longer duration but the point estimates favored longer duration for access site rebleeding and shorter duration for RAO. Duration of <90 minutes and 90 minutes ranked 1 and duration of 2 hours ranked 2 as the most efficacious duration whereas duration of 2 hours ranked 1 and 2 to 4 hours ranked 2 as the safest duration. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing transradial access for coronary angiography or intervention, a hemostasis duration of 2 hours offers the best balance for efficacy (prevention of RAO) and safety (prevention of access site hematoma/rebleeding).