Objective:To describe how pain is assessed (characteristic, location, and intensity) and managed in clinical practice in patients undergoing endovascular procedures in the catheterization laboratory setting. Method: Cross-sectional study with retrospective data collection. Results: Overall, 345 patients were included; 116 (34%) experienced postprocedural pain; in 107 (92%), pain characteristics were not recorded; the location of pain was reported in 100% of patients, and its intensity in 111 (96%); management was largely pharmacologic; of the patients who received some type of management (n=71), 42 (59%) underwent reassessment of pain. Conclusion: The location and intensity of pain are well reported in clinical practice. Pharmacologic pain management is still prevalent. Additional efforts are needed to ensure recording of the characteristics of pain and its reassessment after interventions. DESCRIPTORSPain; Acute Pain; Pain Management; Endovascular Procedures; Nursing Care. Pain assessment and management in patients undergoing endovascular procedures in the catheterization laboratoryAvaliação e manejo da dor em pacientes submetidos a procedimentos endovasculares em laboratório de hemodinâmica Evaluación y tratamiento del dolor en pacientes sometidos a procedimientos endovasculares en el laboratorio de cateterismo INTRODUCTIONEndovascular procedures involve the insertion of radiopaque catheters, via percutaneous venous or arterial puncture (femoral, brachial, or radial) under fluoroscopy guidance, to arrive at the desired location (heart, peripheral vessels, cerebral vessels). These procedures are carried out in catheterization laboratories ("cath labs") for purposes both diagnostic (evaluation of blood flow) and therapeutic (treatment of obstructions, stenoses, or correction of aneurysmal lesions) (1) . A common complaint of patients undergoing endovascular procedures is acute pain at the vascular access site or discomfort in the chest and lower back area, which may be related to bedrest, restricted movement of the accessed limb, to the trauma of vascular puncture itself, or to the potential vascular complications that may develop during the procedure (2)(3)(4) . However, other pain complaints, such as back pain or headache, are also very common in this setting (2)(3)(4)(5)(6) . Considering that the high turnover and dynamics of cath lab work may hinder proper care of pain, staff must pay special attention to assessment, management, and systematic recording of pain levels.Despite substantial growth of endovascular procedures in recent decades (3)(4)(5) , assessment of pain in the post-procedural period does not appear to be a major concern of care teams. Few studies have addressed this topic as a primary outcome in this setting (6)(7)(8) ; in others, pain was assessed a secondary or less important outcome (2) . It is known that inadequate management of postoperative pain can prolong hospitalization, increase healthcare expenditures, and have several clinical repercussions, including changes in blood pr...

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the effect of 2 hemostasis devices on the incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) after transradial cardiac catheterization. Background Radial artery occlusion is the most prevalent ischemic complication after radial artery catheterization. There is still no predictive pattern of vessel patency assessment, and the comparative effectiveness of different hemostasis techniques has yet to be established. Methods This study used a randomized clinical trial of adult patients undergoing transradial cardiac catheterization. Participants were randomized into an intervention group (hemostasis with the TR Band device) and a control group (hemostasis with a conventional pressure dressing). The primary end point was the incidence of RAO (at discharge and at 30 days post catheterization). Results Among the 600 patients included (301 in the intervention group and 299 controls), immediate RAO occurred in 24 (8%) in the TR Band group and 19 (6%) in the pressure-dressing group; at 30 days, RAO was present in 5 patients (5%) in the TR Band group and 7 (6%) in the pressure-dressing group. On multivariate analysis, peripheral vascular disease was the only independent predictor of RAO at discharge and at 30 days. Conclusions The incidence of RAO was similar in patients who received hemostasis with a TR Band versus a pressure dressing after transradial cardiac catheterization.

OBJECTIVE Randomized clinical trial protocol to evaluate the incidence of radial artery occlusion with two different arterial compression devices after transradial procedures. METHODS Barbeau’s test will be performed in adults scheduled to undergo transradial interventional procedures. Those with A, B, or C plethysmographic patterns will be selected. At the end of the procedure, patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive patent haemostasis with TR Band™ device or conventional haemostasis with an elastic adhesive bandage. The primary outcome is the incidence of radial artery occlusion. Secondary outcomes are Barbeau’s test curve change, additional time to achieve haemostasis, incidence of bleeding at the puncture site, pain severity, development of arteriovenous fistula, radial pseudo aneurysm, any access-site complication requiring vascular surgery intervention and costs between the two devices. DISCUSSION The results of this trial should provide valuable additional information on the best approach for haemostasis after transradial percutaneous cardiovascular interventions.