English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

ObjectivesWe evaluated the safety and efficacy after hemostasis with our locally designed Assiut femoral compression device (AFCD) versus manual compression after diagnostic coronary angiography at Assiut University Hospitals.BackgroundPrevious clinical studies have indicated that FCD can be used for achievement of hemostasis after coronary angiography (CA). This study investigated the safety and efficacy of AFCD in achieving hemostasis after CA compared with manual compression in a cohort of consecutive patients.MethodsA total of 162 patients were followed after CA was performed with the transfemoral approach. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to identify the predictors of vascular complications with AFCD (n. 56) or with manual compression (n. 106) as a hemostasis option after sheath removal.ResultsAs regard safety, the use of AFCD was associated with similar occurrence of minor bleeding compared with manual compression (25% vs. 26%, p, 0.8). There was no significant difference in occurrence of major bleeding compared with manual compression (1% vs. 2%, p, 0.5). None of our patient had a pseudoaneurysm, site infection or arteriovenous fistulae with either hemostasis technique. The use of AFCD was associated with a more frequent occurrence of vasovagal manifestation compared with manual compression (5.4% vs. 1%, p, 0.04).As regard efficacy, the device application was easy in 84% with good fixation and stability in 90% of patients. Success in complete hemostasis was 91% with rapid learning curve. There was no difference in total duration of compression to reach full hemostasis with AFCD versus manual compression (13±4 min vs. 12.5±4 min., p, 0.4).ConclusionsIn this early experience with our locally designed AFCD after CA, their use was associated with similar efficacy and safety profile compared with hemostasis using manual compression

A new femoral compression device compared with manual compression for bleeding control after coronary diagnostic catheterizations