Manual vs Pneumatic Compression to Prevent Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Procedures

Overview

This study evaluates two commonly used methods of achieving hemostasis after transradial cardiac catheterization: manual compression and pneumatic compression with gradual deflation. Transradial access is widely used for diagnostic and interventional cardiac procedures due to its safety profile, but radial artery occlusion remains a relevant complication that may limit future vascular access. In this pragmatic, prospective, multicenter study conducted in routine clinical practice, adult patients undergoing transradial cardiac catheterization were assigned to receive either manual compression or pneumatic compression using a standardized patent hemostasis protocol. The primary objective is to compare the incidence of radial artery occlusion at 30 days between both strategies. Secondary outcomes include local vascular complications, patient-reported pain, and total compression time.

Transradial access has become the preferred approach for diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures due to its association with reduced bleeding complications, earlier mobilization, and shorter hospital stay compared with transfemoral access. However, radial artery occlusion (RAO) remains a relevant access-site complication that may limit future vascular access or the use of the radial artery as a conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting. Hemostasis following radial sheath removal is a critical step in preserving arterial patency. Two commonly used strategies include manual compression using sterile gauze and non-circumferential adhesive dressing, and pneumatic compression using dedicated mechanical devices typically applied with gradual deflation protocols. Both approaches aim to achieve effective hemostasis while maintaining antegrade arterial flow, a concept known as patent hemostasis. This study was designed as a pragmatic, prospective, multicenter interventional study conducted across eight hospitals in Spain, with central coordination from Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. The objective was to compare the effectiveness and safety of manual radial compression versus pneumatic compression with gradual deflation under standardized patent hemostasis protocols in real-world clinical practice. Consecutive adult patients undergoing diagnostic or interventional cardiac catheterization via transradial access were included. After sheath removal, participants were assigned in a 1:1 predefined alternating sequence to either manual compression or pneumatic compression strategies. In the manual compression group, hemostasis was achieved using direct pressure with sterile gauze and a non-circumferential adhesive dressing, with progressive adjustment of pressure to maintain arterial patency assessed by plethysmography. In the pneumatic compression group, a dedicated compression device was applied and gradually deflated according to a standardized protocol to achieve patent hemostasis. The primary outcome was radial artery occlusion at 30 days, defined as absence of distal plethysmographic signal during radial artery compression assessed using the Barbeau test. Secondary outcomes included local vascular complications (such as hematoma, persistent bleeding, or pseudoaneurysm), patient-reported pain assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS), and total compression time. All participating centers followed a unified protocol, and hemostasis procedures were performed by trained nursing staff. The study was designed to reflect routine clinical practice conditions and to evaluate whether clinical outcomes are primarily influenced by the type of compression strategy or by the standardized implementation of patent hemostasis protocols.