Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print October 7, 2008, 10.1148/radiol.2492080181

(Radiology 2008;249:1058.)

A more recent version of this article appeared on December 1, 2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2492080181v1
249/3/1058    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mlekusch, W.
Right arrow Articles by Schillinger, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mlekusch, W.
Right arrow Articles by Schillinger, M.
© RSNA, 2008

Vascular and Interventional Radiology

Access Site Management after Peripheral Percutaneous Transluminal Procedures: Neptune Pad Compared with Conventional Manual Compression1

Wolfgang Mlekusch, MD, Erich Minar, MD, Petra Dick, MD, Schila Sabeti, MD, Andrea Bartok, MD, Markus Haumer, MD, Michael Bonelli, MD, Laurenz Vormittag, MD, Renate Koppensteiner, MD, and Martin Schillinger, MD

1 From the Department of Internal Medicine II, Division of Angiology, Medical University Vienna, General Hospital, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. Received January 28, 2008; revision requested March 28; revision received May 5; accepted May 16; final version accepted May 30. Address correspondence to W.M. (e-mail: wolfgang.mlekusch{at}meduniwien.ac.at).

Purpose: To investigate the safety and efficacy of the procoagulant wound dressing Neptune Pad (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) compared with those of conventional manual compression for access site management after peripheral percutaneous interventions.

Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee, and all patients gave written informed consent. Two hundred one consecutive patients were enrolled and were randomly assigned to be treated with the Neptune Pad (n = 100) or conventional manual compression (n = 101). Patients were followed up clinically until hospital discharge and with duplex ultrasonography at 24 hours after the procedure to evaluate occurrence of access site complications. Time to hemostasis and time to ambulation were recorded, and patient and physician discomfort were measured by using a visual analogue scale.

Results: The risk for access site complications was not significantly different between the Neptune Pad group and the conventional compression group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.47, 2.84; P = .76). Time to hemostasis was marginally reduced in the Neptune Pad group. Patient and physician discomfort were lessened with use of the device.

Conclusion: The hemostatic device Neptune Pad does not improve the safety of access site management after peripheral percutaneous procedures. Markedly improved comfort was noted among patients in the Neptune Pad group and by the physicians obtaining hemostasis.

© RSNA, 2008