No abstract

Background. Despite the enormous benefits of radial access, this route is associated with a risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO). Objective. We compared the incidence of RAO in patients undergoing transradial coronary angiography and intervention after short versus prolonged hemostasis protocol. Also we assessed the efficacy of rescue 1-hour ipsilateral ulnar artery compression if RAO was observed after hemostasis. Material and Methods. Patients referred for elective transradial coronary procedures were eligible. After 6 F radial sheath removal, patients were randomized to short (3 hours) (n = 495) or prolonged (8 hours) (n = 503) hemostasis and a simple bandage was placed over the puncture site. After hemostasis was completed, oximetry plethysmography was used to assess the patency of the radial artery. Results. One thousand patients were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar between both groups with average age 61.4 ± 9.4 years (71% male) and PCI performed on half of the patients. The RAO rate immediately after hemostasis was 3.2% in the short hemostasis group and 10.1% in the prolonged group ( p < 0.001 ). Rescue recanalization was successful only in the short group in 56.2% (11/19); at hospital discharge, RAO rates were 1.4% in the short group and 10.1% in the prolonged group ( p < 0.001 ). Conclusion. Shorter hemostasis was associated with significantly less RAO compared to prolonged hemostasis. Rescue radial artery recanalization was effective in > 50%, but only in the short hemostasis group.

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of our study was to evaluate implantation efficacy and safety across various occluder types and to identify factors determining device selection.Methods. This single-site prospective observational study included patients above the age of 40 years with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and high thromboembolic risk, undergoing endovascular isolation of the left atrium appendage (LAA) with Watchman or Amplatzer Cardiac Plug/Amulet devices. Occluders were implanted to patients without either had contraindications to anticoagulant therapy (ACT) or refused ACT. We evaluated technical aspects of device implantation, short- and long-term outcomes of the intervention over 3 years of follow-up.Results. 90 patients were enrolled in the study (62 into the Watchman arm and 28 into the Amplatzer arm). Interventions were technically successful in 89 cases. In 1 patient (1/90, 1.1%) technical success was not achieved due to device migration (Amplatzer Amulet). The incidence of early (occurring within˂ 24 hours) implantation complications was 0% in the Watchman arm, and 3.6% in the Amplatzer arm (1/28) (р=0.135) (device migration). The cumulative incidence of all in-hospital complications was 11.3% and 14.3%, respectively (р=0.734). No significant differences between arms were found in the incidence of device thrombosis within 90 days post-implantation (3.3% in the Watchman’s arm and 8.3% in the Amplatzer arm, р=0.316). During the observation period, there were no significant differences in comparison groups in the incidence of net clinical efficacy endpoint events (р=0.58). The bleeding rate was 17.7% and 14.3%, respectively, р=0.769. No factors influencing the choice of the device could be identified reliably; however, there was a trend towards Watchman preference for appendage anatomic variants such as broccoli and cactus. Amplatzer was preferred in patients with contraindications to ACT.Conclusion. Implantation of Watchman and Amplatzer Amulet occluders is equally effective and safe in preventing thromboembolism in patients with AF not receiving ACT for various reasons. The individual choice of a device may be influenced by appendage anatomy and indications to occluder implantation.