Intra-arterial nicardipine versus verapamil during transradial access coronary catheterization.

IF 1.6 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Keshav Patel, Melissa Duckett, Mladen I Vidovich, Khalil Ibrahim
{"title":"Intra-arterial nicardipine versus verapamil during transradial access coronary catheterization.","authors":"Keshav Patel, Melissa Duckett, Mladen I Vidovich, Khalil Ibrahim","doi":"10.1016/j.carrev.2024.08.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Intra-arterial (IA) vasodilators are recommended during transradial access (TRA) to prevent radial artery spasm (RAS). The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends either IA verapamil, diltiazem, nicardipine, or nitroglycerin to prevent RAS. To our knowledge, the efficacy of RAS prevention and patient tolerability of verapamil and nicardipine has not been directly compared in a randomized fashion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective, single-blinded randomized clinical trial comparing the discomfort experienced by patients receiving either 400 μg of IA nicardipine (n = 26) or 5 mg of IA verapamil (n = 29). Patient discomfort and/or pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) both before and after IA administration of nicardipine or verapamil.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a statistically significant difference in mean change in VAS scores between the 2 groups, with an average increase in VAS score of 0.88 in the nicardipine group and 4.81 in the verapamil group (p < 0.0001). The overall rate of RAS was low in our study (5.5 %) with no significant difference in RAS incidence between the 2 groups (p = 0.465). The nicardipine group had 2 RAS cases (7.7 %), with 1 requiring a change in strategy (3.8 %). The verapamil group had 1 RAS case (3.4 %) that did not require a change in strategy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this trial, we showed that nicardipine causes significantly less discomfort and pain compared to verapamil during IA administration for TRA cardiac catheterization.</p>","PeriodicalId":47657,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2024.08.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Intra-arterial (IA) vasodilators are recommended during transradial access (TRA) to prevent radial artery spasm (RAS). The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends either IA verapamil, diltiazem, nicardipine, or nitroglycerin to prevent RAS. To our knowledge, the efficacy of RAS prevention and patient tolerability of verapamil and nicardipine has not been directly compared in a randomized fashion.

Methods: We conducted a prospective, single-blinded randomized clinical trial comparing the discomfort experienced by patients receiving either 400 μg of IA nicardipine (n = 26) or 5 mg of IA verapamil (n = 29). Patient discomfort and/or pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) both before and after IA administration of nicardipine or verapamil.

Results: There was a statistically significant difference in mean change in VAS scores between the 2 groups, with an average increase in VAS score of 0.88 in the nicardipine group and 4.81 in the verapamil group (p < 0.0001). The overall rate of RAS was low in our study (5.5 %) with no significant difference in RAS incidence between the 2 groups (p = 0.465). The nicardipine group had 2 RAS cases (7.7 %), with 1 requiring a change in strategy (3.8 %). The verapamil group had 1 RAS case (3.4 %) that did not require a change in strategy.

Conclusion: In this trial, we showed that nicardipine causes significantly less discomfort and pain compared to verapamil during IA administration for TRA cardiac catheterization.

经桡动脉入路冠状动脉导管术中动脉内尼卡地平与维拉帕米的对比。
导言:建议在经桡动脉入路(TRA)时使用动脉内(IA)血管扩张剂,以防止桡动脉痉挛(RAS)。美国心脏协会(AHA)建议使用维拉帕米、地尔硫卓、尼卡地平或硝酸甘油来预防 RAS。据我们所知,维拉帕米和尼卡地平对 RAS 的预防效果和患者耐受性还没有进行过直接的随机比较:我们进行了一项前瞻性、单盲随机临床试验,比较了接受 400 μg 体内注射尼卡地平(26 人)或 5 mg 体内注射维拉帕米(29 人)的患者的不适感。在服用尼卡地平或维拉帕米前后,均使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)对患者的不适和/或疼痛进行评估:结果:两组 VAS 评分的平均变化差异有统计学意义,尼卡地平组 VAS 评分平均增加 0.88 分,维拉帕米组则平均增加 4.81 分(p 结论:尼卡地平和维拉帕米的疗效均优于尼卡地平:本试验表明,与维拉帕米相比,尼卡地平在 TRA 心导管植入术中引起的不适和疼痛明显更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine
Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
687
审稿时长
36 days
期刊介绍: Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine (CRM) is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original laboratory and clinical investigations related to revascularization therapies in cardiovascular medicine. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine publishes articles related to preclinical work and molecular interventions, including angiogenesis, cell therapy, pharmacological interventions, restenosis management, and prevention, including experiments conducted in human subjects, in laboratory animals, and in vitro. Specific areas of interest include percutaneous angioplasty in coronary and peripheral arteries, intervention in structural heart disease, cardiovascular surgery, etc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信