Interventional Cardiology Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, PO Box 815-838-8994, Isfahan, Iran.
Cardiac Rehabilitation Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2021 Oct;36(4):490-497. doi: 10.1007/s12928-020-00707-w. Epub 2020 Sep 10.
Trans-palmar catheterization has been considered to be safe and feasible and choosing a reliable hemostasis method is essential to confirm it. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of three hemostasis approaches containing ulnar TR band, manual compression and wrist hyperextension in patients undergoing trans-palmar coronary angiography (CAG). In a non-randomized clinical trial, a total of 106 patients undergoing diagnostic CAG by tarns-palmar access were divided into three groups: ulnar TR band, manual compression and wrist hyperextension. Duration of primary hemostasis, patient satisfaction, puncture site pain severity, hospitalization time and local neuro-vascular complication were evaluated and compared in hospital and 30 days follow-up. The mean age of the patients was 62.9 ± 7.4 years and 72 patients (67.9%) were male. Primary hemostasis time was significantly shorter in hyperextension (11.5 ± 2.10 min) and manual compression groups (12.3 ± 2.20 min) than with TR band group (24.7 ± 10.25 min) (p value < 0.0001). Patient's satisfaction was higher in hyperextension approach (9.4 ± 0.65) than manual compression (8.8 ± 0.79) and TR band group (8.2 ± 0.90) (p value < 0.0001). The most pain was seen in the TR band and the less in hyperextension group until 4 h after the procedure (p value < 0.0001). Hematoma, numbness and ulnar artery occlusion as well as hospitalization time did not have significant statistical differences (p value > 0.05). In conclusion, between three methods of hemostasis in trans-palmar catheterization, hyperextension approach is the preferred method because of effectiveness, safety and less time consuming hemostatic method compared others.
经掌穿刺已被认为是安全可行的,选择一种可靠的止血方法对于确认这一点至关重要。我们的研究目的是比较三种止血方法(尺侧 TR 带、手动压迫和腕关节伸展)在经掌冠状动脉造影(CAG)患者中的疗效和安全性。在一项非随机临床试验中,共有 106 例经掌入路行诊断性 CAG 的患者分为三组:尺侧 TR 带、手动压迫和腕关节伸展。评估并比较了在医院和 30 天随访时的主要止血时间、患者满意度、穿刺部位疼痛严重程度、住院时间和局部神经血管并发症。患者的平均年龄为 62.9±7.4 岁,72 例(67.9%)为男性。伸展组(11.5±2.10min)和手动压迫组(12.3±2.20min)的主要止血时间明显短于 TR 带组(24.7±10.25min)(p 值<0.0001)。伸展组(9.4±0.65)的患者满意度高于手动压迫组(8.8±0.79)和 TR 带组(8.2±0.90)(p 值<0.0001)。TR 带组疼痛最明显,伸展组疼痛最不明显,直到术后 4 小时(p 值<0.0001)。血肿、麻木和尺动脉闭塞以及住院时间无显著统计学差异(p 值>0.05)。总之,在经掌穿刺的三种止血方法中,伸展法是一种有效的、安全的、耗时较少的止血方法,优于其他方法。