Comparison of Safety of RADial comPRESSion Devices: A Multi-Center Trial of Patent Hemostasis following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention from Conventional Radial Access (RAD-PRESS Trial)

Abstract

Although radial access is the current gold standard for the implementation of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), post-procedural radial compression devices are seldom compared with each other in terms of safety or efficacy. Our group aimed to compare a cost effective and potentially green method to dedicated radial compression devices, with respect to access site complications combined in a device oriented complex endpoint (DOCE), freedom from which served as our primary endpoint. Patients undergoing PCI were randomized to receive either the cost effective or a dedicated device, either of which were removed using patent hemostasis. Twenty-four hours after the procedure, radial artery ultrasonography was performed to evaluate the access site. The primary endpoint was assessed using a non-inferiority framework with a non-inferiority margin of five percentage points, which was considered as the least clinically meaningful difference. The cost-effective technique and the dedicated devices were associated with a comparably low rate of complications (freedom from DOCE: 83.3% vs. 70.8%, absolute risk difference: 12.5%, one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11%). Composition of the DOCE (i.e., no complication, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, and radial artery occlusion) and compression time were also assessed in superiority tests as secondary endpoints. Both the cost-effective technique and the dedicated devices were associated with comparably low rates of complications: p = 0.1289. All radial compression devices performed similarly when considering the time to complete removal of the respective device (120.0 (inter-quartile range: 100.0–142.5) for the vial vs. 120.0 (inter-quartile range: 110.0–180) for the dedicated device arm, with a median difference of [95% CI]: 7.0 [−23.11 to 2.00] min, p = 0.2816). In conclusion, our cost-effective method was found to be non-inferior to the dedicated devices with respect to safety, therefore it is a safe alternative to dedicated radial compression devices, as well as seeming to be similarly effective.