Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 12, 2025
Evaluation of a Novel Laser-assisted Coronary Anastomotic Connector - the Trinity Clip - in a Porcine Off-pump Bypass Model
Published on: November 24, 2014
A comparative study of TR Band and a new hemostatic compression device after transradial coronary catheterization
Yong Wang1, Jing Tang1, Jingwei Ni1
1Department of Cardiology, Rui Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Insights
A new hemostatic compression device offers improved patient comfort and reduced vascular complications like radial artery occlusion (RAO) after transradial coronary catheterization compared to the TR Band.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Vascular Surgery
- Medical Devices
Background:
- Transradial coronary catheterization is a common procedure.
- Hemostasis is crucial after catheterization.
- Various compression devices are used, including the TR Band.
Observation:
- A new hemostatic compression device was compared to the TR Band in 118 patients.
- Efficacy, safety, patient comfort, and vascular function were assessed.
- The new device demonstrated significant improvements in patient comfort and reduced vascular complications.
Findings:
- No significant difference in hematoma or ecchymosis between groups.
- The new device group reported significantly less pain, numbness, and pulse loss.
- Lower incidence of venous reflux obstruction and radial artery occlusion (RAO) in the new device group.
- The new device was independently associated with lower RAO incidence.
Implications:
- The new hemostatic compression device is a safe and effective alternative to the TR Band.
- It offers superior patient comfort and reduced risk of vascular complications.
- This device may improve outcomes and patient satisfaction after transradial procedures.
Abstract:
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.
