A comparative study of TR Band and a new hemostatic compression device after transradial coronary catheterization

Objective: Transradial coronary catheterization has proved to be safe and effective in clinical practice. Various hemostatic compressive devices have been used in subsequent procedures. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a new hemostatic compression device and the widely used TR Band.Methods: A total of 118 patients were divided randomly into two groups: TR Band and the new hemostatic compression device. Efficacy of hemostasis, patient comfort, local vascular dysfunction, and radial artery occlusion (RAO) were evaluated and compared between groups.Results: Occurrence of errhysis or hematoma did not significantly differ between groups (13.6% vs. 11.9%, P = 0.782). Fewer patients had moderate to severe pain or moderate to severe numbness in the new hemostatic compression device group (1.7% vs. 22.0%; 1.7% vs. 18.6%, respectively). Pulse loss between distal artery and device was lower in the new hemostatic compression device group (5.1% vs. 22.0%, P = 0.007), and fewer patients experienced obstruction of venous reflux compared with the TR Band group (6.8% vs. 25.4%, P = 0.006). Combined incidence of RAO at discharge was 7.6%, and was lower in the new hemostatic compression device group (1.7% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.015). In contrast to the TR Band, application of the new hemostatic compression device was independently associated with lower incidence of RAO at discharge (odds ratio: 0.062, 95% confidence interval: 0.006–0.675, P = 0.022).Conclusions: Both the new hemostatic compression device and the TR Band can efficiently achieve hemostasis following transradial coronary catheterization. However, fewer patients felt discomfort with application of the new hemostatic compression device. Pulse loss in the artery distal to the compression device, obstruction of venous reflux, and RAO occurred significantly less often with application of the new device.