Ignite Creation Date:
2024-05-06 @ 6:45 PM
Last Modification Date:
2024-10-26 @ 2:54 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT05776550
Status:
RECRUITING
Last Update Posted:
2024-03-15
First Post:
2023-03-08
Brief Title:
Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach SAFE-BOX
Sponsor:
Yonsei University
Organization:
Yonsei University
Study Overview
Official Title:
A Prospective Registry to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach SAFE-BOX
Status:
RECRUITING
Status Verified Date:
2024-03
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
A Prospective Registry to assess the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach
Detailed Description:
Anaphylactic radial approach is now recognized as a basic technique in coronary artery procedures The main advantage is increased stability due to the reduction of massive bleeding and increased patient comfort because it can move immediately after the procedure The operator prefers access to the right radial artery because of the comfort of performing the procedure on the right side of the patient However the operator should frequently replace it with a left radial artery approach for various reasons including 1 closure of the right radial artery 2 difficulty accessing the coronary artery due to severe gambling of the radial artery and 3 hemodialysis of the right radial artery
As for prognosis the left and right radial artery approaches are similar However the left radial artery approach is bound to experience anthropological discomfort in which the operator has to lean toward the patient An easy solution is the approach from the anatomical left snuff box located on the back of the hand to the distal radial artery Recently the left snuffbox approach has been reported and attempts are increasing in many countries However it is true that there is still a difference in diameter of the radial artery through the distant radial artery approach and concerns about percutaneous coronary intervention through this compared to the classical radial artery approach Recent studies have published studies on the stability and effectiveness of distant radial artery approaches but they are still small and studies on specific subgroups are very scarce Furthermore data on the current status and performance in Korea so far is very scarce Therefore through this study we would like to systematically collect and analyze data on the status and performance of the approach through the distant radial artery approach to find out the stability and effectiveness of various patient groups treatment methods
As for prognosis the left and right radial artery approaches are similar However the left radial artery approach is bound to experience anthropological discomfort in which the operator has to lean toward the patient An easy solution is the approach from the anatomical left snuff box located on the back of the hand to the distal radial artery Recently the left snuffbox approach has been reported and attempts are increasing in many countries However it is true that there is still a difference in diameter of the radial artery through the distant radial artery approach and concerns about percutaneous coronary intervention through this compared to the classical radial artery approach Recent studies have published studies on the stability and effectiveness of distant radial artery approaches but they are still small and studies on specific subgroups are very scarce Furthermore data on the current status and performance in Korea so far is very scarce Therefore through this study we would like to systematically collect and analyze data on the status and performance of the approach through the distant radial artery approach to find out the stability and effectiveness of various patient groups treatment methods
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
None