MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406391264 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2024.1412479

Enhancing heart and circulatory well-being through optimized radial artery techniques: a meta-analysis of hemostasis and patient comfort

2025· review· en· W4406391264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hongyan Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemostasisMedicineCirculatory systemCardiologyRadial arteryInternal medicineMeta-analysisArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective This meta-analysis elucidates the efficacy of the Transradial Band Device (TR Band) in minimizing complications like radial artery occlusion and hematoma, preserving heart health, and enhancing blood flow post-transradial catheterization. Methods A comprehensive literature search across databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase examined the impact of radial artery compression techniques and decompression times on complications. Data from 13 studies were analyzed using R 4.1.2 with fixed-effects and random-effects models. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed the risk of bias in observational cohort studies. Results In our meta-analysis, we evaluated data from various studies encompassing different air volumes in transradial band devices across several outcomes including bleeding, hematoma, radial artery occlusion (RAO), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, and compression time. The collective analysis integrated findings from 11 studies, totaling 4,679 patients. No significant difference in bleeding risk (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.60–1.82, p > 0.05, I 2 = 78%), hematoma incidence (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78–1.19, p > 0.05, I 2 = 0%), or RAO incidence (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78–1.19, p > 0.05, I 2 = 0%) was observed between the “Less air” and “15 ml air” groups. However, the “Less air” group reported significantly higher VAS scores indicating increased pain or discomfort (Mean Difference 0.25, 95% CI 0.09–0.41, p < 0.05, I 2 = 0%). Compression time analyses showed no significant difference between groups (Mean Difference −17.73, 95% CI −54.65–19.20, p > 0.05, I 2 = 99%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of these findings, and Egger's test indicated no significant publication bias across the outcomes. This synthesis highlights the nuanced impact of air volume adjustments in transradial bands on patient outcomes, emphasizing the necessity for further research and standardized protocols to optimize patient safety and comfort post-intervention. Conclusion The TR Band, when utilized with optimized air volume/pressure, maintains an essential balance between ensuring hemostasis and enhancing patient comfort without elevating the risk of radial artery complications. These findings support the careful selection of TR Band settings to optimize clinical outcomes in patients undergoing transradial cardiac procedures. Further research is warranted to establish standardized guidelines for the most effective use of TR Band in various clinical scenarios.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207