Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 23, 2025
06:53
A Rat Carotid Artery Pressure-Controlled Segmental Balloon Injury with Periadventitial Therapeutic Application
Published on: July 9, 2020
5.4K
Randomized Trial of Radial Hemostasis Using Focused vs Balloon Compression Devices.
Jordan G Safirstein1, Ali Elfandi, Nicole Reid
1Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown Medical Center, 100 Madison Ave, Morristown, NJ 07960 USA. jsaf237@yahoo.com.
The Journal of Invasive Cardiology
|April 25, 2020
Summary
Focused compression using the VasoStat device achieved faster radial artery hemostasis than balloon compression. Both methods temporarily reduced hand perfusion, especially during ulnar artery compression.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Interventions
- Vascular Access Management
Background:
- Radial artery hemostasis devices utilize varying compression mechanisms.
- These mechanisms may impact the time to achieve hemostasis and subsequent hand perfusion.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy of focused compression versus balloon compression for radial artery hemostasis.
- To evaluate the impact of these devices on hand perfusion.
Main Methods:
- A randomized controlled trial involving 52 subjects undergoing transradial procedures.
- Comparison of VasoStat (focused compression) and TR Band (balloon compression) devices.
- Measurement of time to hemostasis and hand perfusion index (PI) at multiple time points.
Main Results:
- Focused compression achieved significantly shorter time to hemostasis (P=.04).
- The VasoStat device showed a greater time reduction in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
- Both devices transiently reduced hand perfusion, with a more pronounced effect during ulnar artery compression.
Conclusions:
- The VasoStat focused compression device facilitates earlier complete hemostasis compared to the TR Band balloon compression device.
- Both devices temporarily impair hand perfusion, necessitating further investigation in larger trials.
