Comparison of conventional compressive dressings vs. wristband devices after catheterization by radial approach

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Wristband devices used in the compression of the radial puncture site add cost to the procedure and have not been adequately compared with conventional compressive dressings. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of both forms of hemostasis in patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention in daily practice. Methods A prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study, which included consecutive patients who underwent procedures through radial access. The type of compression was at the interventionist's discretion and the availability of wristband devices. The main objective was to compare the patency of the radial artery on the 7 th day after the procedure, measured by Doppler. Secondarily, the authors evaluated the occurrence of bleeding/hematoma at the puncture site during compression, after removal of the device and on the 7 th day after the procedure. Results This study evaluated 528 patients, 416 using conventional compressive dressings and 112 using wristband devices. When the sheath was removed and soon after its removal, a higher incidence of bleeding in the conventional compressive dressings group was observed (13.4% vs. 0%; p p = 0.20). Conclusions The use of wristband devices for radial artery hemostasis did not result in higher rates of late arterial patency when compared to conventional compressive dressings.