Randomized trial comparing radial hemostasis techniques; catechol conjugated chitosan pad (InnoSEAL) versus pneumatic compression band.

OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives: to compare radial artery occlusion rate (RAO) after cardiac catheterization between catecholamine-chitosan pad (InnoSEAL) and pneumatic compression device (PCD) and to compare difference in hemostasis time and radial monitoring termination time between two arms. Secondary objectives: to compare radial site bleeding and ease of use of two methods by cath-lab technicians. BACKGROUND: Hemostatic pads may be an effective alternative to PCD with lesser chance of access site complications with advantage of shortened compression time. METHODS: Patients (N = 606) undergoing trans-radial, diagnostic or interventional procedures were randomized to either InnoSEAL arm or PCD. RAO was assessed using US Duplex; performed 6-24 hr posthemostatic device removal. Time to hemostasis was recorded as per defined protocols. Ease of use among cath-lab technicians was assessed through 5 point Likert scale. RESULTS: Data of 597 patients was analyzed (299 InnoSEAL, 298 PCD). RAO rate was 8.5% in InnoSEAL and 9.4% in PCD arm (p value >.05). The pooled median hemostasis time and time to termination of radial monitoring was 42 versus 225 min and 50 versus 240 min in InnoSEAL and PCD arms, respectively (p value: <.01). There was no difference in Grade I/II hematoma (InnoSEAL: 1.3% vs. PCD: 3.4%). InnoSEAL was marginally acceptable compared to PCD by technicians. CONCLUSION: Hemostasis time is significantly shorter in InnoSEAL arm with reasonable acceptability to its usage among cath lab staff. RAO and bleeding complications are comparable between the arms. Based on our findings, it seems feasible to include Chitosan based hemostasis pad routinely in cath lab.

Prevalence of non-acute ischaemic cardiomyopathy in a Pakistani cohort.

Heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a frequently encountered clinical scenario. Coronary angiography (CAG) is usually performed to assess obstructive epicardial coronary artery disease (CAD) and the resultant ischaemia as causes of HFrEF. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of obstructive CAD (OCAD) in patients with HFrEF and its independent predictors and outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective observational study in Tabba Heart Institute on patients who underwent CAG during the past 4 years. Patients with prior known CAD or revascularisation were excluded. OCAD was defined as per the criteria from Felker et al. Regression modelling was performed to evaluate the predictors of OCAD. Survival was compared between the groups using the log rank test. RESULTS: Out of 2235 patients who underwent CAG, 260 had HFrEF as a primary indication for CAG and, of these, 119 (45.8%) had OCAD. Major predictors of OCAD were age >50 years at presentation (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.7), presence of chest pain (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.3 to 8.1), family history of premature CAD (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.9) and utilisation of non-invasive (NIV) stress testing before CAG (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.8 to 7.1). Survival was significantly lower (log rank p<0.001) in patients with OCAD with no revascularisation compared with OCAD with revascularisation or those who had non-obstructive CAD, and the latter two groups had comparable survival. CONCLUSIONS: OCAD is detected in nearly half of the patients with reduced left ventricular systolic function undergoing CAG. Clinical judgement based on thorough history and use of NIV stress testing can help in appropriate patient selection for this test.