Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clinical Practice Patterns for Transradial Coronary Artery Catheterisation in Australian and New Zealand: Mixed-Methods Survey and Interview Study

BACKGROUND

While there has been an increase in the use of the transradial approach when performing percutaneous coronary angiography and intervention, there is evidence of variations in international practice. Ensuring that operators' practices are supported by evidence is important to ensure optimal outcomes.

METHOD

Interventional cardiologists and advanced trainees completed a cross-sectional survey followed by semi-structured interviews to map current practices for transradial coronary artery procedures in Australia and New Zealand and explore factors that influence clinical decision-making around procedural practice.

RESULTS

The right radial artery was the preferred access site (88%). Over a third (37%) of the participants indicated that they tested the hand circulation pre-procedure. Over a quarter of respondents (28.6%) reported that they would carry out transradial procedures regardless of the patient's coagulation status. Most participants (77.8%) described radial artery spasm in around 10% of transradial procedures performed. Only 62% of participants assessed for radial artery occlusion post-catheterisation. Interview data revealed four themes that guided clinical decision-making, namely (1) Decision-making based on research, (2) Using clinical experience, (3) Being led by their training, and (4) Individual patient factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has demonstrated that despite clinical guidelines, substantial practice variation exists in transradial coronary artery catheterisation across Australia and New Zealand. The variation in practice and factors impacting clinical decision-making highlight a need for future strategies to optimise evidence translation and implementation across clinical settings.

Prognosis Impact and Prediction of Trans-Radial Access Failure in Patients With STEMI, A Nationwide Observational Study

Trans-radial access (TRA) is the primary arterial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, occasionally, a crossover to trans-femoral access is necessary because of unsuccessful TRA. The impact of failed TRA on the prognosis in STEMI patients and the utility of predictive models for TRA failure remains uncertain. Data from the Hungarian Myocardial Infarction Registry (January 2014 to December 2020) were analyzed. Primary endpoints were 1-year mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. Propensity score matching was employed to create a balanced cohort for comparing successful and failed TRA. The impact of unsuccessful TRA on prognosis was evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Machine learning techniques were applied to predict TRA failure. The performance and the clinical applicability of the novel and previous prediction models were comprehensively evaluated. Of 76,625 registered patients, 34,293 (69.8 ± 13.4 years, male/female: 21,893/12,400) underwent TRA (33,573) or failed TRA (720) PCI for STEMI. After propensity score matching, in the unsuccessful TRA group, the risk of mortality (34.3% vs 22.5%, hazard ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 2.0, p <0.001) and major adverse cardiovascular events (37.4% vs 26.8%, hazard ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.8, p <0.001) were significantly higher. Door-to-balloon time did not differ significantly (p = 0.835). In predictive analysis, Regularized Discriminant Analysis emerged as the most promising model, surpassing previous prediction models (area under the curve: 0.66, sensitivity: 0.32, specificity: 0.86). Nevertheless, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) 2.0 score demonstrated a remarkable performance (area under the curve: 0.65, sensitivity: 0.51, specificity: 0.73). This study underscores the pivotal role of successful TRA in enhancing outcomes in STEMI cases, advocating for its prioritization. The inability to conclude interventions through this approach is linked to a poorer prognosis, even in risk-adjusted analyses. Our findings indicate that prediction models utilizing clinical parameters do not outperform the established GRACE 2.0 algorithm, questioning their utility. In conclusion, the results emphasize the significance of TRA success and the continued relevance of the GRACE score in clinical decision-making to optimize patient outcomes.

Distal transradial access for targeted spinal angiography and embolization

BACKGROUND

Spinal catheter angiography is commonly performed in the evaluation and treatment of spinal vascular lesions. The typical approach to spinal angiography consists of access through the femoral artery with the use of suitably shaped catheters for selective catheterization of the spinal segmental vasculature. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of distal transradial access through the "anatomical snuffbox" for targeted spinal angiography, for the investigation and treatment of selected spinal lesions.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent transradial spinal angiography and embolization was performed from August 2019 to January 2022. A total of eight patients were identified, who underwent targeted spinal angiography through distal transradial access. Outcome measures were documented in a tabular manner.

RESULTS

Radial access was successful in all patients. Seven patients had vascular tumors of the spinal column and underwent tumor embolization followed by segmental artery occlusion prior to surgery. One patient had a spinal dural AV fistula that could not be embolized due to feeding vessel tortuosity and eventually went on to have a laminectomy. Mean fluoroscopy time was 31.4 min. There were no access site hemorrhagic complications. One patient experienced transient mild hand numbness during the period of hemostasis with the vascular compression device that resolved completely within 24 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Distal transradial access is a feasible and safe option for targeted spinal angiography and treatment in selected patients.

Rationale and Design of the Rivaroxaban Post-Transradial Access for the Prevention of Radial Artery Occlusion Trial (CAPITAL-RAPTOR)

INTRODUCTION

Transradial access (TRA) has rapidly emerged as the preferred vascular access site for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) remains as an important complication of TRA as it precludes future ipsilateral transradial procedures. While intraprocedural anticoagulation has been studied extensively, the definitive role of postprocedural anticoagulation has not yet been established.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Rivaroxaban Post-Transradial Access for the Prevention of Radial Artery Occlusion trial is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint design study investigating the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban to reduce the incidence of RAO. Eligible patients will undergo randomisation to receive either rivaroxaban 15 mg once daily for 7 days or to no additional postprocedural anticoagulation. Doppler ultrasound to assess radial artery patency will be performed at 30 days.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has been approved by the Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board (approval number 20180319-01H). The study results will be disseminated via conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03630055.

Association Between the Access Site for Coronary Angiography and Catheter-induced Coronary Artery Dissection

Background

Catheter-induced coronary artery dissection (CICAD) is a rare complication of coronary angiography. The association between access site and CICAD remains unclear; however, transradial access (TRA) may be associated with a higher incidence of CICAD due to access vessel tortuosity and the mechanical disadvantage of catheters designed for the transfemoral access (TFA) approach.

Methods

In this retrospective study, the reports of consecutive left heart catheterizations between April 2007, and December 2021 were reviewed for CICAD. Patients were excluded if the procedural report did not report an arterial access site. Identified CICAD cases were reviewed in detail.

Results

There were 142/89,876 (0.16%) identified cases of CICAD. The access site was not associated with an increased risk of CICAD (0.18% with TRA vs 0.15% with TFA; relative risk [RR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.84-1.65; P = .34) over the entire study period. With respect to TRA-related CICAD, male sex was associated with a decreased risk of dissection (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-0.99; P = .04), but ST-elevation myocardial infarction at presentation was associated with an increased risk (RR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.86-4.85; P < .01). In the TFA-predominant era, TRA was associated with an increased risk of CICAD (0.48% TRA vs 0.11% TFA; RR, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.05-5.69; P < .01)-an association that was not present in the TRA-predominant era. In-hospital mortality in patients with CICAD was 8.5%.

Conclusions

CICAD is a rare complication of coronary angiography. Over a 15-year period, we did not demonstrate an association between access site and an increased risk of CICAD. There is substantial mortality associated with CICAD.

Evolution of Transradial Access for Mechanical Thrombectomy-A Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Transradial access (TRA) recently has gained popularity among neurointerventionalists. However, hesitation to its use for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) remains.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and describe the evolution of TRA for MT.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing TRA for MT. We performed a chronological ternary analysis to assess the impact of experience. We assessed the impact of a guide catheter designed specifically for TRA.

RESULTS

We identified 53 patients who underwent TRA for MT. There was a statistically significant decrease in contrast use (148.9 vs 109.3 vs 115.2 cc), procedure time (62.4 vs 44.7 vs 41.3 minutes), fluoroscopy time (39.2 vs 44.7 vs 41.3 minutes), and puncture-to-recanalization time (40.6 vs 27.3 vs 29.4) over time. There was trend toward improved thrombolysis in cerebral infarction ≥ 2b recanalization rate (72.2% vs 77.8% vs 100%) over time. The introduction of a radial-specific catheter had a statistically significant positive impact on contrast use (133.8 vs 93 cc, P = .043), procedure time (54.2 vs 36.4 minutes, P = .003), fluoroscopy time (33.7 vs 19.8 minutes, P = .004), puncture-to-recanalization time (35.8 vs 25.1 minutes, P = .016), and thrombolysis in cerebral infarction ≥ 2b recanalization rate (71.4% vs 100%, P = .016).

CONCLUSION

TRA is a safe and effective route of endovascular access for MT. Experience with this technique improves its efficacy and efficiency. The introduction of a TRA-specific catheter expands the armamentarium of the neurointerventionalist and may facilitate lesion access during MT procedures. Continued development of radial-specific devices may further improve MT outcomes.

Radial versus femoral access in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A propensity-matched analysis from real-world data of the K-ACTIVE registry

BACKGROUND

The access site for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recently shifted from femoral to radial. However, few real-world data on Japanese patients exist.

METHODS

To elucidate the clinical selection and impact of the access site in STEMI patients, we analyzed a Japanese observational prospective multicenter registry of acute myocardial infarction (K-ACTIVE: Kanagawa ACuTe cardIoVascular rEgistry) in 2015 to 2021. Data were analyzed in the entire population and a propensity score-matched population adjusted for confounding factors. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 was used to assess bleeding events. MACE plus BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding were considered composite events. Clinical outcomes were followed for 30 days.

RESULTS

The 6802 STEMI patients included 4786 patients with radial access (70.3 %) and 2016 with femoral access (29.7 %). Femoral access tended to be selected for more severe conditions than radial access. The median door-to-device time in the radial access group was significantly shorter than the femoral access group in the entire population (75 min versus 79 min, p < 0.01). After propensity score matching (each group, n = 1208), the incidence of MACE tended to be lower in the radial access group [risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.63-1.09, p = 0.17]. The incidence of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding was significantly less in the radial access group (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.23-0.97, p = 0.04). The incidence of composite events was significantly less in the radial access group (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.57-0.96, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, in comparison to femoral access, radial access reduced composite events in the entire population and the matched population, through a reduction in MACE and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding.

Culprit vessel revascularization first with primary use of a dedicated transradial guiding catheter to reduce door to balloon time in primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Background

The effect of a single transradial guiding catheter (STGC) for culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) first on door-to-balloon (D2B) time remains unclear.

Materials and methods

Between February 2017 and July 2019, 560 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were randomized into either the STGC group (n = 280) or the control group (n = 280) according to direct culprit vessel PCI with a STGC. In the STGC group, a dedicated transraidal guiding catheter (6F either MAC3.5 or JL3.5) was used for the treatment of electrocardiogram (ECG)-guided culprit vessel first and later contralateral angiography. In the control group, a universal diagnostic catheter (5F Tiger II) was used for complete coronary angiography, followed by guiding catheter selection for culprit vessel PCI. The primary endpoint was D2B time, and the secondary endpoint included catheterization laboratory door-to-balloon (C2B), procedural, fluoroscopy times, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days.

Results

The median D2B time was significantly shorter in the STGC group compared to the control group (53.9 vs. 58.4 min; p = 0.003). The C2B, procedural, and fluoroscopy times were also shorter in the STGC group (C2B: 17.3 vs. 24.5 min, p &lt; 0.001; procedural: 45.2 vs. 49.0 min, p = 0.012; and fluoroscopy: 9.7 vs. 11.3 min, p = 0.025). More patients achieved the goal of D2B time within 90 min (93.9% vs. 87.1%, p = 0.006) and 60 min (61.4% vs. 51.1%, p = 0.013) in the STGC group. Radial artery perforation (RAP) was significantly reduced in the STGC group compared with the control group (0.7% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.033). MACE at 30 days was similar (2.5% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.172) between the two groups.

Conclusion

ECG-guided immediate intervention on culprit vessel with a STGC can reduce D2B, C2B, procedural, and fluoroscopy times (ECG-guided Immediate Primary PCI for Culprit Vessel to Reduce Door to Device Time; NCT03272451).

State-of-the-Art Endovascular Therapies for the Femoropopliteal Segment: Are We There Yet?

Peripheral arterial disease is an increasingly prevalent condition with significant associated morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure. Endovascular interventions are appropriate for most patients with either ongoing symptoms of intermittent claudication despite lifestyle and medical optimization or chronic limb-threatening ischemia. The femoropopliteal segment is the most common arterial culprit responsible for claudication and the most commonly revascularized segment. Endovascular approaches to revascularization of the femoropopliteal segment are advancing with an evolving landscape of techniques for arterial access, device-based therapies, vessel preparation, and intraprocedural imaging. These advances have been marked by debate and controversy, notably related to the safety of paclitaxel-based devices and necessity of atherectomy. In this review, we provide a critical overview of the current evidence, practice patterns, emerging evidence, and technological advances for endovascular intervention of the femoropopliteal arterial segment.

Relation of Operator Volume and Access Site to Short-Term Mortality in Radial Versus Femoral Access for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The relation between operator volume and mortality of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) procedures for ST-elevation myocardial infarction has not been studied comprehensively. This study included patients who underwent PPCI between 2010 and 2017 in all nonfederal hospitals approved to perform PCI in New York State. We compared risk-adjusted in-hospital/30-day mortality for radial access (RA) and femoral access (FA) and the relation between risk-adjusted mortality and procedure volume for each access site. In 44,540 patients in the study period, the use of RA rose from 8% in 2,010% to 43% in 2017 (p <0.0001). There was no significant change in PPCI risk-adjusted mortality during the period (p=0.27 for trend). RA was associated with lower mortality when imposing operator exclusion criteria used in recent trials. There was a significant operator inverse volume-mortality relation for FA procedures but not for RA procedures. FA procedures performed by lower volume FA operators (lowest quartile) were associated with higher risk-adjusted mortality compared with RA procedures (3.71% vs 3.06%, p = 0.01) or compared with FA procedures performed by higher volume FA operators (3.71% vs 3.16%, p = 0.01). In conclusion, in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction referred for primary PCI in New York State, there was a significant uptake in the use of RA along with relatively constant in-hospital/30-day mortality. There was a significant inverse operator volume-mortality relation for FA procedures accompanied by higher mortality for FA procedures performed by low volume FA operators than for all other primary PCI procedures. In conclusion, this information underscores the need for operators to remain vigilant in maintaining FA skills and monitoring FA outcomes.

Minimalistic hybrid approach for the percutaneous treatment of chronic coronary total occlusions: An in-depth analysis of the whole algorithm

INTRODUCTION

The minimalistic hybrid approach (MHA) is an algorithm to perform chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The current study aims to evaluate the distribution of patients among the five different treatment strategies, the different techniques used in each strategy, the overall procedural success, and the safety of the MHA algorithm.

METHODS

Data from a consecutive series of patients with a CTO who underwent elective PCI between February 2019 and July 2021 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-three CTOPCI in 135 patients were approached according to the MHA algorithm: 134 CTO (93.7%) were successfully recanalized and 9 procedures failed. About half of the procedures (48.3%) were approached using strategy A: antegrade "blind wiring" with contralateral retrograde options, making this the most popular strategy. A total of 89 procedures (62.2%) were completed with a single guiding catheter; in 86 (96.6%) a forearm approach was used. The remaining 54 cases were performed with dual access; in the majority of these patients (90.7%), a bilateral forearm approach was used. The only reason to use the femoral access was inadequate forearm access. One hundred and fifty-four out of 197 (78.2%) access sites were 6 French sheaths.

CONCLUSION

MHA is a stepwise approach focused on the forearm approach to reduce the number of access sites and catheter size used in CTOPCI while maintaining proficiency and safety. Operators should be warned that this approach should be adopted only by experienced CTO operators who master all the strategies of the classic hybrid algorithm and the forearm approach.

Trends in Arterial Access Site Selection and Bleeding Outcomes Following Coronary Procedures, 2011-2018

BACKGROUND

Prior studies of radial access for cardiac catheterization have focused on early adopters of the technique, and some have described a risk/treatment paradox of low radial access use among high bleeding risk patients. This study aimed to determine (1) trends in radial access use over time, (2) if increasing use of radial access is driven by new invasive and interventional cardiologists (operators) or existing operators changing their practice, and (3) if increasing radial rates are associated with lower bleeding rates and elimination of the risk/treatment paradox.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study using data from the Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program, we calculated radial access rates and risk-adjusted postprocedural bleeding rates of patients undergoing diagnostic angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2011 and 2018 in Veterans Affairs hospitals. We used separate bleeding risk models for diagnostic angiography and PCI and assessed temporal trends with the Kendall Tau-b test.

RESULTS

Among 253 179 diagnostic angiograms and 93 614 PCIs, radial access rates increased over time for both diagnostic (17.5%-60.4%; P<0.01)) and PCI procedures (14.0%-51.8%; P<0.01). Existing operators and new operators increased their use at similar rates, but new operators entered practice with higher baseline rates. Nearly all operators used radial access at least once in 2018. Overall adjusted rates of bleeding declined, a trend that was significant for diagnostic angiography (2.4%-1.4%, P=0.02) but not PCI (3.4%-2.5%, P=0.20). Femoral access patients had a higher predicted risk for bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

A steady rise in radial access for diagnostic angiography and PCI was driven by increasing use among existing operators and high use by new operators. While this was associated with decreasing bleeding rates, a risk/treatment paradox for access site selection persists; patients at higher bleeding risk were still more likely to receive femoral access.

Transradial versus Transfemoral Access and the Risk of Acute Kidney Injury following Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity-Score-Matched Studies

Objectives

The aim of this study is to examine the association between vascular access sites and the incidence of AKI in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.

Background

Emerging evidence has suggested that transradial access (TRA) may be associated with lower rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) as compared with transfemoral access (TFA). However, most of these studies have included a nonselected study population undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data on the association between TRA and AKI in this setting of STEMI are limited and with conflicting results.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for abstracts and full-text articles from inception to July 13^th of 2021. Studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies evaluating the association of TRA versus TFA access with AKI in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI. Data were integrated using the random effects model and generic inverse‐variance method of DerSimonian and Laird.

Results

A total of 10,093 studies were found. After applying our inclusion criteria, 5 studies from 2014 to 2021 with a total of 8,536 STEMI patients were included. TRA was not significantly associated with a reduced risk for AKI compared with TFA (odds ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.71–1.01, p 0.07, I² = 40%).

Conclusions

Transradial access was not significantly associated with lower risk of AKI in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI compared with TFA. Larger studies are needed to clarify this outcome.

Trends in Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation Following ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Over a 20-Year Period

Background: Ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) is a common complication of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Little is known regarding the impact of IMR over a long period of follow up.

Methods: Of 3,208 consecutive STEMI patients from a prospective registry, full echocardiographic information was available for 2,985 patients between the years 2000 and 2020. We compared the two decades- 2001 to 2010 and 2011 to 2020, and assessed for the presence of IMR at baseline, 3 (range 2–6) months and 12 (range 10–14) months after the index event.

Results: One thousand six hundred and sixty six patients were included in the first decade, 1,319 in the second. Mean patient age was 61.3 ± 12.3 years, 21.1% female patients in the first decade vs. 60.9 ± 12.0 years and 22.2% female in the second (p = 0.40 and p = 0.212, respectively). Rates of moderate IMR or above during the index admission were 17.2% in the first period and 9.3% in the second one (p < 0.001). After 3 months, the rate of IMR was 48.5% for those who suffered from IMR at baseline, vs. 9.5% for those without IMR at baseline (HR- 4.2, p < 0.001). Death rates for those with moderate IMR or above were 14.7% and 17.8% after 1 and 2 years, respectively, vs. 7.3 and 9.6% for those without (p < 0.001 for both). IMR was associated with 1 year mortality in multivariate analysis (HR-1.37; 1.09–2.20, p = 0.009), as well as in propensity score matched analysis (HR 1.29; CI: 1.07–1.91; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: IMR is a common complication following acute STEMI, impacting prognosis. Rates of IMR have declined significantly over the years.

Patent hemostasis of radial artery: Comparison of two methods

BACKGROUND

Radial artery obstruction is the most common complication of coronary angiography performed via transradial access. Patent hemostasis can significantly reduce the risk of radial artery occlusion. Previous studies utilized sophisticated methods to evaluate radial artery patency. Simplified and easily applicable methods for successful patent hemostasis are currently lacking.

AIM

To determine which method (pulse oximeter vs the traditional radial artery palpation) is better to achieve patent hemostasis.

METHODS

This prospective, single center study included 299 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention between November 2017 and July 2019. Patients less than 18 years old, with a history of radial artery disease, or no palpable artery pulse were excluded from the study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. In the first group, radial artery flow was assessed by palpation of the artery during hemostasis (traditional method). In the second group, radial artery patency was estimated with the use of a pulse oximeter. Two different compression devices were used for hemostasis (air chamber and pressure valve). The primary study endpoint was the achievement of successful patent hemostasis.

RESULTS

The two groups (pulse oximeter vs artery palpation) had no significant differences in age, sex, body mass index, risk factors, or comorbidities except for supraventricular arrhythmias. The percentage of patients with successful patent hemostasis was significantly higher in the pulse oximeter group (82.2% vs 68.1%, P = 0.005). A lower percentage of patients with spasm was recorded in the pulse oximeter group (9.9% vs 19.0%, P = 0.024). The incidence of local complications, edema, bleeding, hematoma, vagotonia, or pain did not differ between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, the use of a pulse oximeter (OR: 2.35, 95%CI: 1.34-4.13, P = 0.003) and advanced age (OR: 1.04, 95%CI: 1.01-1.07, P = 0.006), were independently associated with an increased probability of successful patent hemostasis. The type of hemostatic device did not affect patent hemostasis (P = 0.450).

CONCLUSION

Patent hemostasis with the use of pulse oximeter is a simple, efficient, and safe method that is worthy of further investigation. Larger randomized studies are required to consider its clinical implications.