Comparison of the Use of a Compression Assist Device vs. Manual Compression Following Arterial Sheath Removal

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/156974
Category:
Abstract
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Comparison of the Use of a Compression Assist Device vs. Manual Compression Following Arterial Sheath Removal
Author(s):
Dressel, Beverly J.
Author Details:
Beverly J. Dressel, RN,BSN,CCRN, Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, email: bjd3823@bjc.org
Abstract:
POSTER PURPOSE: To determine if use of a compression assist device was superior to manual compression in the areas of clinician hand fatigue and confidence/satisfaction in achieving hemostasis after removal of arterial sheaths. Incidence of complications was also studied. BACKGROUND/SIGNIFICANCE:Achieving optimal hemostasis after arterial sheath removal is important in the prevention of complications such as hematoma formation, bleeding at the puncture site, and loss of distal arterial pulses. The current practice in our cardiac catheterization laboratory is to apply pressure with 2 or more fingers over the arterial site. Maintaining proper finger placement and the correct amount of pressure can be tiring and painful for clinicians. METHOD: A posttest-only comparisons design was used. Patients (n = 89) undergoing removal of 4F arterial sheaths were randomized into the compression assist or the manual compression group. Compression times were the same. The ComfortPress Manual Compression Assist Device was used for patients in the compression assist group; the manual compression group used the current practice of using fingers only. Staff were trained on the use of the ComfortPress device and completed an 8-item Likert posttest survey measuring clinician hand fatigue and confidence/satisfaction of achieving hemostasis. Complications were recorded. Independent sample t tests were used to determine outcome differences. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in clinician hand fatigue or confidence/satisfaction in achieving hemostasis was found between the 2 groups. However, statistical significance was found for hematoma formation. There was less hematoma formation in the group in which the ComfortPress Manual Compression Assist Device was used (mean, 1.88; SD, 0.31) than the group using manual compression alone (mean, 2.00; SD, 0.00; t89 = 2.55, P < .001). One hematoma was found in the ComfortPress group and 4 hematomas were found in the manual compression group. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of a 4F arterial sheath requires relatively short compression times, which may account for the finding of no significant difference between the groups in hand fatigue and confidence/satisfaction of achieving hemostasis. Recognizing this as a limitation, a second phase of this study that uses larger sheath sizes is currently under review by the institutional review board. The ComfortPress device is a safe alternative to manual compression and is now used in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
26-Oct-2011
Citation:
2010 National Teaching Institute Research Abstracts. American Journal of Critical Care, 19(3), e15-e28. doi:10.4037/ajcc2010866
Conference Date:
2010
Conference Name:
National Teaching Institute and Critical Care Exposition
Conference Host:
American Association of Critical-Care Nurses
Conference Location:
Washington, D.C., USA
Note:
This is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.type.categoryAbstracten_GB
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleComparison of the Use of a Compression Assist Device vs. Manual Compression Following Arterial Sheath Removalen_GB
dc.contributor.authorDressel, Beverly J.en_GB
dc.author.detailsBeverly J. Dressel, RN,BSN,CCRN, Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, email: bjd3823@bjc.orgen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/156974-
dc.description.abstractPOSTER PURPOSE: To determine if use of a compression assist device was superior to manual compression in the areas of clinician hand fatigue and confidence/satisfaction in achieving hemostasis after removal of arterial sheaths. Incidence of complications was also studied. BACKGROUND/SIGNIFICANCE:Achieving optimal hemostasis after arterial sheath removal is important in the prevention of complications such as hematoma formation, bleeding at the puncture site, and loss of distal arterial pulses. The current practice in our cardiac catheterization laboratory is to apply pressure with 2 or more fingers over the arterial site. Maintaining proper finger placement and the correct amount of pressure can be tiring and painful for clinicians. METHOD: A posttest-only comparisons design was used. Patients (n = 89) undergoing removal of 4F arterial sheaths were randomized into the compression assist or the manual compression group. Compression times were the same. The ComfortPress Manual Compression Assist Device was used for patients in the compression assist group; the manual compression group used the current practice of using fingers only. Staff were trained on the use of the ComfortPress device and completed an 8-item Likert posttest survey measuring clinician hand fatigue and confidence/satisfaction of achieving hemostasis. Complications were recorded. Independent sample t tests were used to determine outcome differences. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in clinician hand fatigue or confidence/satisfaction in achieving hemostasis was found between the 2 groups. However, statistical significance was found for hematoma formation. There was less hematoma formation in the group in which the ComfortPress Manual Compression Assist Device was used (mean, 1.88; SD, 0.31) than the group using manual compression alone (mean, 2.00; SD, 0.00; t89 = 2.55, P < .001). One hematoma was found in the ComfortPress group and 4 hematomas were found in the manual compression group. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of a 4F arterial sheath requires relatively short compression times, which may account for the finding of no significant difference between the groups in hand fatigue and confidence/satisfaction of achieving hemostasis. Recognizing this as a limitation, a second phase of this study that uses larger sheath sizes is currently under review by the institutional review board. The ComfortPress device is a safe alternative to manual compression and is now used in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T19:18:33Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-26en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T19:18:33Z-
dc.identifier.citation2010 National Teaching Institute Research Abstracts. American Journal of Critical Care, 19(3), e15-e28. doi:10.4037/ajcc2010866en_GB
dc.conference.date2010en_GB
dc.conference.nameNational Teaching Institute and Critical Care Expositionen_GB
dc.conference.hostAmerican Association of Critical-Care Nursesen_GB
dc.conference.locationWashington, D.C., USAen_GB
dc.identifier.citation2010 National Teaching Institute Research Abstracts. American Journal of Critical Care, 19(3), e15-e28. doi:10.4037/ajcc2010866en_GB
dc.description.noteThis is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.-
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.