Randomized Comparison of Terumo® Coated Slender™ versus Terumo® Noncoated Traditional Sheath during Radial Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Background. The transradial approach is generally associated with few complications. However, periprocedural pain is still a common issue, potentially related to sheath insertion and/or arterial spasm, and may result in conversion to femoral access. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) following the proced...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Interventional Cardiology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7348167 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832546629474844672 |
|---|---|
| author | Birthe Sindberg Christel Gry Aagren Nielsen Marianne Hestbjerg Poulsen Martin Bøhme Rasmussen Steen Carstensen Troels Thim Lars Jakobsen Jacob Thorsted Sørensen Benedicte Haastrup Hanne Maare Søndergaard Michael Mæng Christian Juhl Terkelsen |
| author_facet | Birthe Sindberg Christel Gry Aagren Nielsen Marianne Hestbjerg Poulsen Martin Bøhme Rasmussen Steen Carstensen Troels Thim Lars Jakobsen Jacob Thorsted Sørensen Benedicte Haastrup Hanne Maare Søndergaard Michael Mæng Christian Juhl Terkelsen |
| author_sort | Birthe Sindberg |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background. The transradial approach is generally associated with few complications. However, periprocedural pain is still a common issue, potentially related to sheath insertion and/or arterial spasm, and may result in conversion to femoral access. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) following the procedure is also a potential risk. We evaluate whether the design of the sheath has any impact on these variables. Methods. A total of 1,000 patients scheduled for radial CAG or PCI were randomized (1:1) to the use of a Slender or a Standard sheath during the procedure. Randomization was stratified according to chosen sheath size (5, 6, 7 French) and gender. A radial band was used to obtain hemostasis after the procedure, employing a rapid deflation technique. A reverse Barbeau test was performed to evaluate radial artery patency after removal of the radial band, and level of pain was assessed using a numeric rating scale (NRS). Results. Use of the Slender sheath was associated with less pain during sheath insertion (median NRS 1 versus 2, p=0.02), whereas no difference was observed in pain during the procedure, radial procedural success rates, use of analgesics and sedatives during the procedure, and radial artery patency following the procedure. Rate of RAO was 1.5% with no difference between groups. Conclusion. The use of the hydrophilic coated Slender sheath during radial CAG or PCI was associated with less pain during sheath insertion, whereas no difference in other endpoints was observed. A rapid deflation technique was associated with RAO of only 1.5%. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-bf4b653c74784bfcb789854b7de6ff9c |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0896-4327 1540-8183 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Interventional Cardiology |
| spelling | doaj-art-bf4b653c74784bfcb789854b7de6ff9c2025-02-03T06:47:54ZengWileyJournal of Interventional Cardiology0896-43271540-81832019-01-01201910.1155/2019/73481677348167Randomized Comparison of Terumo® Coated Slender™ versus Terumo® Noncoated Traditional Sheath during Radial Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary InterventionBirthe Sindberg0Christel Gry Aagren Nielsen1Marianne Hestbjerg Poulsen2Martin Bøhme Rasmussen3Steen Carstensen4Troels Thim5Lars Jakobsen6Jacob Thorsted Sørensen7Benedicte Haastrup8Hanne Maare Søndergaard9Michael Mæng10Christian Juhl Terkelsen11Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8200 Aarhus N, DenmarkDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8200 Aarhus N, DenmarkDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8200 Aarhus N, DenmarkDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8200 Aarhus N, DenmarkDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8200 Aarhus N, DenmarkDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8200 Aarhus N, DenmarkDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8200 Aarhus N, DenmarkDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8200 Aarhus N, DenmarkViborg Regional Hospital, Heibergs Alle 4, 8800 Viborg, DenmarkViborg Regional Hospital, Heibergs Alle 4, 8800 Viborg, DenmarkDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8200 Aarhus N, DenmarkDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8200 Aarhus N, DenmarkBackground. The transradial approach is generally associated with few complications. However, periprocedural pain is still a common issue, potentially related to sheath insertion and/or arterial spasm, and may result in conversion to femoral access. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) following the procedure is also a potential risk. We evaluate whether the design of the sheath has any impact on these variables. Methods. A total of 1,000 patients scheduled for radial CAG or PCI were randomized (1:1) to the use of a Slender or a Standard sheath during the procedure. Randomization was stratified according to chosen sheath size (5, 6, 7 French) and gender. A radial band was used to obtain hemostasis after the procedure, employing a rapid deflation technique. A reverse Barbeau test was performed to evaluate radial artery patency after removal of the radial band, and level of pain was assessed using a numeric rating scale (NRS). Results. Use of the Slender sheath was associated with less pain during sheath insertion (median NRS 1 versus 2, p=0.02), whereas no difference was observed in pain during the procedure, radial procedural success rates, use of analgesics and sedatives during the procedure, and radial artery patency following the procedure. Rate of RAO was 1.5% with no difference between groups. Conclusion. The use of the hydrophilic coated Slender sheath during radial CAG or PCI was associated with less pain during sheath insertion, whereas no difference in other endpoints was observed. A rapid deflation technique was associated with RAO of only 1.5%.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7348167 |
| spellingShingle | Birthe Sindberg Christel Gry Aagren Nielsen Marianne Hestbjerg Poulsen Martin Bøhme Rasmussen Steen Carstensen Troels Thim Lars Jakobsen Jacob Thorsted Sørensen Benedicte Haastrup Hanne Maare Søndergaard Michael Mæng Christian Juhl Terkelsen Randomized Comparison of Terumo® Coated Slender™ versus Terumo® Noncoated Traditional Sheath during Radial Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Journal of Interventional Cardiology |
| title | Randomized Comparison of Terumo® Coated Slender™ versus Terumo® Noncoated Traditional Sheath during Radial Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
| title_full | Randomized Comparison of Terumo® Coated Slender™ versus Terumo® Noncoated Traditional Sheath during Radial Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
| title_fullStr | Randomized Comparison of Terumo® Coated Slender™ versus Terumo® Noncoated Traditional Sheath during Radial Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
| title_full_unstemmed | Randomized Comparison of Terumo® Coated Slender™ versus Terumo® Noncoated Traditional Sheath during Radial Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
| title_short | Randomized Comparison of Terumo® Coated Slender™ versus Terumo® Noncoated Traditional Sheath during Radial Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
| title_sort | randomized comparison of terumo r coated slender™ versus terumo r noncoated traditional sheath during radial angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7348167 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT birthesindberg randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT christelgryaagrennielsen randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT mariannehestbjergpoulsen randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT martinbøhmerasmussen randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT steencarstensen randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT troelsthim randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT larsjakobsen randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT jacobthorstedsørensen randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT benedictehaastrup randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT hannemaaresøndergaard randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT michaelmæng randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT christianjuhlterkelsen randomizedcomparisonofterumocoatedslenderversusterumononcoatedtraditionalsheathduringradialangiographyorpercutaneouscoronaryintervention |