Trial reportAnatolian journal of cardiology2021
Manual versus mechanical compression hemostasis approach after coronary angiography via snuffbox access.
Trial report in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of two radial hemostasis strategies following percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective, single-center, real-world cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Emerging Perspectives of Anatomical snuff box in Invasive Cardiology.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2023Article
- Advancement in Coronary Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using the Distal Transradial Artery Access in Acute Coronary Syndrome and Complex Coronary Artery Disease.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2022Review
- Serum Levels of VWF, t-PA, TNF-Genetics research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDistal radial artery access or trans-snuffbox access (TSA) is a novel, safe, and feasible technique for coronary artery interventions wherein its vascular hemostasis is still concerned. So, this study aimed to compare two homeostasis methods comprising manual and mechanical compression approaches in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) via TSA.
methodsIn a prospective nonrandomized clinical trial, a total of 80 patients undergoing diagnostic CAG by TSA were divided into two equal groups: manual compression and mechanical compression (using radial TR band), the main end point of which was primary hemostasis time. Other variables were patient satisfaction, puncture site pain severity, hospitalization time, and local neurovascular complication during the 30-day follow-up.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 57.1±8.0 years, with 40 of them (54.1%) being male. The primary hemostasis time was significantly shorter in the manual compression approach [15.0±5.9 minutes with median 15 (9-20)] than in the TR band group [25.7±4.9 minutes with median 25 (20-30)] (p<0.001). No significant difference was noted in the patient's satisfaction and puncture site pain severity as well as hospitalization time between the two methods (p>0.050). The neurovascular complication, including hematoma, numbness, and dRA occlusion, rates had also no significant difference between the two groups (p>0.050).
conclusionThe manual compression approach on the puncture site reduces hemostasis time in patients undergoing CAG via TSA when compared with the mechanical compression method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.