Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal · October 29, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Objectives. To evaluate a pressure-measured pneumatic radial compression protocol and its association with radial artery occlusion (RAO) after transradial coronary procedures.Design. This single-center retrospective historical cohort included 514 consecutive patients treated between February and December 2025. The control group received conventional screw-type compression with clinically guided staged adjustment (n = 260), whereas the observation group received pneumatic compression with quantitative pressure measurement and individualized staged adjustment (n = 254). The primary outcome was RAO at 24 h; RAO at 7 days and other clinical outcomes were secondary outcomes.Results. The observation group had lower observed RAO rates than the control group at 24 h [2.8% (7/254) vs. 7.7% (20/260), p = 0.012] and 7 days [2.0% (5/254) vs. 5.4% (14/260), p = 0.040]. After Firth penalized logistic regression, the protocol remained associated with lower odds of RAO at 24 h (adjusted OR = 0.358, 95% CI: 0.143-0.809; p = 0.013). The observation group also had lower pain scores at 6 and 24 h (both p < 0.001), higher digital SpO2 values at 2, 4, and 24 h (all p < 0.001), higher primary hemostatic success [97.2% vs. 93.5%, p = 0.042], and fewer patients with puncture-site oozing [2.8% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.028] or at least one local complication [11.4% vs. 28.1%, p < 0.001].Conclusions. Pressure-guided pneumatic compression was associated with lower observed RAO rates and more favorable hemostatic and local outcomes than conventional screw-type compression.Study registration. This study was a retrospective cohort study and did not involve a prospective intervention; therefore, clinical trial registration was not required.