Coronary Artery Disease Clinical Trial
Official title:
Arterial Closure vs Direct Compression for Hemostasis After Percutaneous Coronary Interventions
Hemostasis at the arterial puncture site after percutaneous coronary interventions is achieved by either placement of a puncture closure device or by delaying sheath removal for hours to allow normalization of heparin induced anticoagulation. Both of these methods are far from ideal. Delayed sheath removal poses a risk of recurrent bleeding, hematoma formation and results in decreased patient mobility while the safety of closure devices has been called into question by several recent reports. Due to the lack of definitive data, the arterial access site management varies considerably between physicians and among institutions. The proposed study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of arterial closure devices to achieve hemostasis compared with immediate sheath removal after protamine administration followed by direct compression after percutaneous coronary intervention procedures.
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most common procedure performed for
obstructive coronary artery disease with more than one million procedures performed annually
in United States alone1. Despite major advances in technology and operative expertise, the
optimum management of arterial access site after PCI procedures remains unclear.
The conventional practice of arterial access site management involves delaying of sheath
removal for several hours to allow normalization of heparin induced anticoagulation. This
delayed sheath removal poses a risk of recurrent bleeding and hematoma formation.
Furthermore, delayed sheath removal results in decreased patient mobility, increased patient
discomfort and requires frequent monitoring with an impact on nursing resources. The risks
associated with delayed sheath removal may be further increased by concomitant
administration of potent anti platelet therapy now routinely used in patients undergoing
PCI2.
Arterial puncture closure devices (APCD) were developed to obtain immediate arterial access
site hemostasis after closed vascular procedures with an aim towards early patient
mobilization. Although the efficacy of APCD have been documented in several small studies
but limited information is available regarding their safety in diverse patient populations.
A recent meta analysis has shown increased vascular complication rate associated with the
use of these devices bringing the safety of their routine use into question3.
Due to lack of definitive data, the arterial access site management varies considerably
between physicians and among institutions. APCD are routinely used by some centers4 while
others continue to delay arterial sheath removal for several hours after the procedure5.
Immediate sheath removal followed by direct compression though routinely practiced after
coronary angiographic procedures is not used after PCI procedures due to the intra
procedural administration of heparin resulting in prolonged anticoagulation. Reversal of
heparin with protamine may allow immediate sheath removal resulting in early patient
ambulation and decreased access site vascular complications. The safety and efficacy of
intravenous protamine administration for reversal of heparin is well established by its
routine use in cardiovascular surgery for several decades6 and recent reports showing safety
and efficacy of this method for early sheath removal after PCI procedures7-9.
The proposed study is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of immediate sheath
removal followed by direct compression as compared to the use of APCD to achieve hemostasis
after PCI.
;
Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Outcomes Assessor), Primary Purpose: Treatment
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Recruiting |
NCT06030596 -
SPECT Myocardial Blood Flow Quantification for Diagnosis of Ischemic Heart Disease Determined by Fraction Flow Reserve
|
||
Completed |
NCT04080700 -
Korean Prospective Registry for Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach (KODRA)
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT03810599 -
Patient-reported Outcomes in the Bergen Early Cardiac Rehabilitation Study
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT06002932 -
Comparison of PROVISIONal 1-stent Strategy With DEB Versus Planned 2-stent Strategy in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.
|
N/A | |
Not yet recruiting |
NCT06032572 -
Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of the VRS100 System in PCI (ESSENCE)
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT04242134 -
Drug-coating Balloon Angioplasties for True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT05308719 -
Nasal Oxygen Therapy After Cardiac Surgery
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT04556994 -
Phase 1 Cardiac Rehabilitation With and Without Lower Limb Paddling Effects in Post CABG Patients.
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT05846893 -
Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Drug-Eluting Stent for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Large Coronary Artery Disease
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT06027788 -
CTSN Embolic Protection Trial
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT05023629 -
STunning After Balloon Occlusion
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT04941560 -
Assessing the Association Between Multi-dimension Facial Characteristics and Coronary Artery Diseases
|
||
Completed |
NCT04006288 -
Switching From DAPT to Dual Pathway Inhibition With Low-dose Rivaroxaban in Adjunct to Aspirin in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT01860274 -
Meshed Vein Graft Patency Trial - VEST
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT06174090 -
The Effect of Video Education on Pain, Anxiety and Knowledge Levels of Coronary Bypass Graft Surgery Patients
|
N/A | |
Terminated |
NCT03959072 -
Cardiac Cath Lab Staff Radiation Exposure
|
||
Completed |
NCT03968809 -
Role of Cardioflux in Predicting Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) Outcomes
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05065073 -
Iso-Osmolar vs. Low-Osmolar Contrast Agents for Optical Coherence Tomography
|
Phase 4 | |
Recruiting |
NCT04566497 -
Assessment of Adverse Outcome in Asymptomatic Patients With Prior Coronary Revascularization Who Have a Systematic Stress Testing Strategy Or a Non-testing Strategy During Long-term Follow-up.
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05096442 -
Compare the Safety and Efficacy of Genoss® DCB and SeQuent® Please NEO in Korean Patients With Coronary De Novo Lesions
|
N/A |