A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 144

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 144
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 212
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3106
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Transpedal vs. femoral access for peripheral arterial interventions-A single center experience. | LitMetric

Transpedal vs. femoral access for peripheral arterial interventions-A single center experience.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv

Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, New York.

Published: June 2019

Objective: To compare the transpedal approach to established femoral approach for endovascular treatment of infrainguinal peripheral arterial disease.

Background: Endovascular treatment of infrainguinal peripheral arterial disease is on the rise. Femoral approach is widely used but has significant complications. Recently the primary transpedal approach has been described for endovascular interventions. We hypothesized that transpedal approach could reduce access site related complications. We compared the two approaches in a retrospective cross-sectional study at a single center.

Methods: We analyzed demographics, procedural parameters, and complications in patients who underwent a primary transpedal approach for infrainguinal intervention and compared to patients with a traditional femoral approach in our outpatient based endovascular lab.

Results: The success rate for access was lower in transpedal group compared to femoral (94% vs. 100%, p = .0002). The contrast dose (44 ± 11 mL vs. 68 ± 13 mL, p < .0001), radiation dose (25 mGy [16-43] vs. 48 mGy [36-67], p < .0001) and fluoroscopy time (5.48 min [3.48-11.71] vs. 9.35 min [6.63-14.11], p < .0001) were significantly lower in transpedal group.

Conclusion: The transpedal approach for infrainguinal revascularization appears to be a reasonable primary approach with high success and low complication rate with significant reduction in radiation and contrast dose. These findings should be further studied in a randomized controlled trial.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28209DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

transpedal approach
16
peripheral arterial
12
femoral approach
12
endovascular treatment
8
treatment infrainguinal
8
infrainguinal peripheral
8
primary transpedal
8
approach
7
transpedal
6
transpedal femoral
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!