The purpose of this intervention study is to compare different types of radial introducers used in traditional radial access in terms of the incidence of complications. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. Does a smaller outer diameter of the introducer reduce the risk of complications associated with radial access? 2. Does the presence of an outer hydrophilic coating on the introducer reduce the risk of complications associated with radial access? 3. Does the use of an introducer with a smaller outer diameter and an outer hydrophilic coating reduce the risk of complications associated with radial access? The researchers will compare the number of complications associated with radial access when using conventional diameter, uncoated radial introducers, conventional diameter introducers with an outer hydrophilic coating, or reduced outer diameter introducers with an outer hydrophilic coating. During the scheduled revascularization procedure, the participants will undergo radial artery catheterization using one of the types of introducers. Complications from the radiation access will be recorded by doctors within 72 hours after the intervention.
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Acute radial artery occlusion after catheterization
Timeframe: Within 72 hours after radial artery catheterization
Radial artery perforation
Timeframe: Perioperative/Periprocedural
Radial artery false aneurysm
Timeframe: Within 72 hours after radial artery catheterization
Hematoma by classification EASY Grade II
Timeframe: Within 72 hours after radial artery catheterization
Persistent radial artery spasm
Timeframe: Perioperative/Periprocedural