Department of Medicine, Lincoln Medical Center, Bronx, NY (M.H.M.).
Division of Cardiology, The Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education, PA (S.P.).
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2023 Feb;16(2):e012781. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.122.012781. Epub 2023 Feb 21.
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.
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.
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.
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).
经桡动脉入路后止血压迫的最佳持续时间存在争议。持续时间较长会增加桡动脉闭塞(RAO)的风险,而持续时间较短会增加穿刺部位出血或血肿的风险。因此,通常使用 2 小时作为目标。但目前尚不清楚较短或较长的持续时间是否更好。
在 PubMed、EMBASE 和 clinicaltrials.gov 数据库中检索了不同止血带持续时间(<90 分钟、90 分钟、2 小时和 2-4 小时)的随机临床试验。疗效终点为 RAO,主要安全性终点为穿刺部位血肿,次要安全性终点为穿刺部位再出血。主要分析比较了不同持续时间与 2 小时持续时间的效果,采用混合治疗比较荟萃分析。
在纳入的 10 项随机临床试验中,共纳入 4911 例患者,与 2 小时参考持续时间相比,90 分钟(比值比,2.39[95%可信区间,1.40-4.06])和<90 分钟(比值比,3.61[95%可信区间,1.79-7.29])的止血带持续时间明显增加了穿刺部位血肿的风险,但 2-4 小时的止血带持续时间没有增加。与 2 小时的参考相比,较短或较长的止血带持续时间与穿刺部位再出血或 RAO 没有显著差异,但点估计值倾向于较长的止血带持续时间用于穿刺部位再出血,较短的止血带持续时间用于 RAO。<90 分钟和 90 分钟的止血带持续时间排名第 1 和第 2,2 小时的止血带持续时间排名第 3;2 小时和 2-4 小时的止血带持续时间排名第 1 和第 2。
在接受经桡动脉入路行冠状动脉造影或介入治疗的患者中,止血带持续 2 小时在疗效(预防 RAO)和安全性(预防穿刺部位血肿/再出血)方面提供了最佳平衡。