Trial reportJournal of interventional cardiology2022
Study on the Safety of the New Radial Artery Hemostasis Device.
Trial report in Journal of interventional cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robust water-activated tissue adhesive patch for arterial/heart wound closure after intervention surgery.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of two radial hemostasis strategies following percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective, single-center, real-world cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of TR Band™ radial artery compression device-screw and air types on bleeding severity after radial arterial line removal in open-heart surgery: A randomized controlled clinical trial.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Competency-driven hemostasis training reduces vascular complications in transradial hemodynamic monitoring: a self-controlled trial with early-career residents.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: At present, the use of particular radial hemostatic devices after coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become the primary method of hemostasis. Most control studies are based on the products already on the market, while only a few studies are on the new hemostatic devices. The aim of this study is to compare a new radial artery hemostasis device which is transformed based on the invention patent (Application number: CN201510275446) with TR Band (Terumo Medical) to evaluate its clinical effects. Methods: In a prospective randomized clinical trial, 60 patients after CAG or PCI were randomly divided into two groups, patients in the trial group (CD group) using a new radial artery hemostasis device to stop bleeding and the control group (TR group) using the TR Band. The method is to collect relevant data of the two groups and compare the differences in hemostasis, local complications, and patient discomfort between the two groups. Results: The hemostatic devices in both groups achieved adequate hemostasis, and there was no failure to stop bleeding. The new radial artery hemostasis device was better than the TR band in pain and swelling ( Conclusions: The sample of the new radial artery hemostasis device can stop bleeding effectively at the puncture site after CAG or PCI and is not inferior to the TR Band balloon hemostatic device in safety and is better in comfort.
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.