Abstract
Objective: The study was conducted to compare the safety and technical effectiveness between conventional hemostatic pressure bandages and pressure bandages using hemostatic pads in patients after angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention with radial artery access.
Subject and method: An observational study was performed on 115 patients, including 55 patients undergoing coronary angiography and 60 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention via the radial artery approach at Tam Anh Hospital in Hanoi from April 1, 2024, to October 31, 2024. Among them, 43 patients received conventional manual compression hemostasis, while 72 patients used a hemostatic pad. Safety was assessed based on the first-attempt success rate of hemostasis, the rate of bleeding or hematoma, and the rate of radial artery occlusion after compression removal. Technical efficacy was evaluated based on the total compression time.
Results: The hemostatic pad group demonstrated similar safety to the conventional manual compression group, with: first-attempt success rates of 95.83% (69/72) vs. 97.67% (42/43), respectively (P=0.52); bleeding or hematoma rates of 9.72% (7/72) vs. 6.98% (3/43), respectively (P=0.74); radial artery occlusion rates of 0% in both groups. The hemostatic pad group showed significantly better efficacy, with a total compression time of 161.1±43.6 minutes compared to 339.6±37.5 minutes in the conventional group, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.0001).
Conclusion: In patients undergoing transradial coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention, the use of a hemostatic pad for compression hemostasis is as safe as conventional manual compression and significantly reduces the total compression time.