title: Patient tolerance and resource utilization associated with an arterial closure versus an external compression device after percutaneous coronary intervention.
abstract: We assessed patient tolerance and resource utilization of using the AngioSeal closure device versus assisted manual compression using the Femostop device after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients undergoing PCI with clean arterial access and no procedural hematoma were randomized to receive the AngioSeal or Femostop device to achieve femoral arterial hemostasis. Times from procedure end to removal from angiography table, hemostasis, ambulation, and hospital discharge were recorded. Bedside nursing/medical officer care time, vascular complications, and disposable use were also documented. Patient comfort was assessed using Present Pain Intensity and Visual Analogue scales at baseline, 4 hr, 8 hr, and the morning after the procedure. One hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled (62 AngioSeal, 60 Femostop). Patients in the AngioSeal group took longer to be removed from the angiography table (11 +/- 4 vs. 9 +/- 3 min; P = 0.002) compared with the Femostop group. Time to hemostasis (0.4 +/- 1.1 vs. 6.4 +/- 1.7 hr; P < 0.001) and ambulation (17 +/- 8 vs. 22 +/- 13 hr; P = 0.004) were less in the AngioSeal group, although time to discharge was not different. Nursing and medical officer time was no different. Disposables including device cost were higher in the AngioSeal group (209 dollars +/- 13 vs. 53 dollars +/- 9; P < 0.001). On a Visual Analogue scale, patients reported more pain at 4 hr (P < 0.001) and 8 hr (P < 0.001) in the Femostop group. The worst amount of pain at any time point was also more severe in the Femostop group (P < 0.001). Similar results were found on a Present Pain Intensity scale of pain. There were no differences in ultrasound-determined vascular complications (two each). Femoral access site closure using the AngioSeal device resulted in a small delay in leaving the angiography suite and a higher disposable cost compared to using the Femostop device. However, patients receiving the AngioSeal were able to ambulate sooner and reported less pain, which may justify the increased costs involved.
authors.affiliation: Department of Cardiology, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia. c.juergens@unsw.edu.au
authors.forename: Craig P
authors.initials: CP
authors.lastname: Juergens
authors.forename: Dominic Y C
authors.initials: DY
authors.lastname: Leung
authors.forename: John A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Crozier
authors.forename: Adelina M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Wong
authors.forename: Jacqui T C
authors.initials: JT
authors.lastname: Robinson
authors.forename: Sidney
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Lo
authors.forename: Hashim
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Kachwalla
authors.forename: Andrew P
authors.initials: AP
authors.lastname: Hopkins
mesh_terms: D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / Q000009:adverse effects*; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D017023:Coronary Angiography; D005260:Female; D006488:Hemostasis, Surgical / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010147:Pain Measurement; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D018579:Patient Selection; D019106:Postoperative Hemorrhage / Q000517:prevention & control; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011677:Punctures / Q000009:adverse effects; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D015607:Stents