Abstract
[Purpose] This study assessed the advantages and shortcomings of methods for hemostasis in patients who had received angiography after femoral arterial puncture using manual, compression device, or a combination of manual compression and a compression device. In addition, the success rates, complications, etc, were analyzed. [Subjects and Methods] One hundred and eighty patients who had undergone angiography after femoral arterial puncture were divided into three groups according to the method of hemostasis. For group A, immediately after angiography, an Angio-Seal device was placed in the puncture area and compressed using a compression device. For group B, after angiography, the puncture area was compressed with the hands directly. For group C, the puncture area was compressed using a compression device for approximately 10 min, and the puncture area was then compressed with the hands. In each group, the following correlations were analyzed: the time to hemostasis after angiography and gender, the time to hemostasis of each generation and the hemoglobin value, and platelet value and the time to hemostasis. [Results] The results showed a similar time to hemostasis regardless of gender or generation. The correlation between the hemoglobin value, platelet value, and the time to hemostasis were not significant. Group A showed the shortest mean time to hemostasis of the three groups (20.37 ± 8.23 min). No complications caused by the hemostasis method were detected in group B. Group A showed the highest incidence of complications caused by hemostasis. [Conclusion] Overall, hemostasis performed mutually is safe and effective for patients according to their condition.