Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of safety between the two groups

From: Comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching

 

cTRA group (n = 146)

dTRA group (n = 118)

χ2 (Z)

P

Hemostasis duration [M (P25, P75), h]

10 (8, 10)

4 (4, 4)

-12.228

 < 0.001***

Bleeding [n (%)]

8 (5.48%)

1 (0.85%)

-

0.045*

Hematoma [n (%)]

4 (2.74%)

0 (0%)

-

0.383

Numbness [n (%)]

2 (1.37%)

1 (0.85%)

-

1.000

 

cTRA group (n = 112)

dTRA group (n = 86)

  

Pseudoaneurysm [n (%)]

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

-

1.000

Arteriovenous fistula [n (%)]

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

-

1.000

Follow-up rate [n (%)]

n = 103 (70.55%)

n = 88 (74.58%)

0.529

0.467

Follow-up period [M (P25, P75), month]

12 (7, 17)

11 (5, 15)

-1.462

0.144

RAO [n (%)]

6 (5.83%)

1 (1.14%)

-

0.126

  1. cTRA conventional transradial access, dTRA distal transradial access, RAO radial artery occlusion
  2. Values are presented as the median (interquartile range) or number (%). A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. *p values < 0.05, ***p values < 0.001