ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Radial artery cardiac catheterization is a common diagnostic and interventional procedure for cardiovascular conditions. Pain and hemorrhage at the access site can cause patient discomfort and complications. This pilot study investigates the potential of local forearm heating to reduce pain and hemorrhage in patients undergoing radial artery cardiac catheterization. METHODS: We enrolled 100 patients scheduled for radial artery cardiac catheterization and randomly assigned them to the heating or control group. The heating group received local forearm heating before sheath removal, while the control group did not. Pain intensity was assessed with a visual analog scale, and hemorrhage was measured by assessing ecchymosis or hematoma size at the catheterization site. Hemodynamic parameters were also monitored. Statistical analysis compared outcomes between the groups. RESULTS: Patients who received local forearm heating had significantly lower pain intensity (4.15 ± 2.73) compared to the control group (5.84 ± 3.34) (P =.009). Hemodynamic parameters and the extent of hemorrhage at the catheterization site did not significantly differ between the heating and control groups (P >.05). No adverse effects related to forearm heating were reported. CONCLUSION: Local forearm heating is a promising intervention to reduce pain intensity without increasing hemorrhage or affecting hemodynamic parameters during radial artery cardiac catheterization. This simple, noninvasive approach has the potential to enhance patient comfort and safety post procedure.
ABSTRACT
Background Patients with mitral valve stenosis have increased heart rate. HR reduction is known as an important treatment and therapy strategy for patients with mitral valve stenosis. Aim of the review The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of ivabradine versus beta-blockers in patients with mitral stenosis in sinus rhythm. Methods Randomized controlled trials were searched in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CRD, Scopus, and Google Scholar with no start time limitation and ending June 2018. Risk of bias across was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool. Fixed effects models were used to combine the results and the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval. This meta-analysis was performed using Meta Package in R software. Results Five studies entered meta-analysis. The total number of patients treated with ivabradine and beta-blockers was 178 and 178 respectively. The results showed that the mean of maximum HR and HR at rest was lower at about 5.03 units and upper 4.32 units respectively with use of ivabradine compared with the use of beta-blockers. These values were statistically significant. Conclusion It seems that the efficacy of ivabradine is good in comparison with betablockers, but it still requires more clinical trials.
