Sefa SURAL, Vedat ASLAN
Anatolian Current Medical Journal - 2026;8(6):1208-1215
Aims: Optimal hemostasis following transradial coronary procedures remains important for minimizing vascular complications. This study compared manual compression and closure device strategies for postprocedural radial hemostasis. Methods: A total of 111 patients undergoing transradial coronary procedures were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided according to the hemostasis technique: closure device (n=70) and manual compression (n=41). Clinical, procedural, and laboratory characteristics, hemostasis duration, and vascular complications, including radial artery occlusion (RAO), radial artery spasm (RAS), hematoma, and major bleeding, were evaluated. Adjusted bootstrap linear regression analysis was performed to assess the independent association between hemostasis method and hemostasis duration. Results: Baseline clinical, procedural, and laboratory characteristics were comparable between groups. Hemostasis duration was significantly longer in the closure device group than in the manual compression group [108.0 (82.0-164.8) vs. 15.0 (10.0-18.0) min, p<0.001]. Patent hemostasis was achieved in all patients. Rates of RAO (10.0% vs. 4.9%, p=0.481), RAS (8.6% vs. 9.8%, p=1.000), and hematoma (4.3% vs. 4.9%, p=1.000) were similar between groups. No major bleeding or cross-over events occurred. In the adjusted analysis, manual compression was associated with a shorter hemostasis duration (beta=-104.18, 95% CI: -119.66 to -90.75). Conclusion: In patients undergoing transradial coronary procedures, manual compression was associated with substantially shorter hemostasis duration than closure device use, while maintaining comparable rates of RAO and other vascular complications. Manual compression may represent a safe and effective alternative hemostasis strategy when patent hemostasis is maintained.
