A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

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

Management of Peripheral Vascular Interventions in an Ambulatory Setting: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis. | LitMetric

Management of Peripheral Vascular Interventions in an Ambulatory Setting: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.

Ann Vasc Surg

Clinique Saint Joseph, Service de chirurgie vasculaire, Trélazé, France.

Published: September 2022

Background: The development of minimally invasive devices to treat peripheral artery disease led to a reduction of complications, particularly of the puncture or access site. Subsequently, the number of ambulatory procedures increased, saving costs and resources. This analysis was performed to provide data on patients treated with 4 French (F) compatible devices in ambulatory and in-hospital settings.

Methods: This is a single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Consecutive patients who received peripheral vascular interventions from 2013 to 2015 were included. Data were extracted from electronic patients' files; data until the time of last contact were collected. Arterial puncture was performed under ultrasound guidance; 4F compatible devices ought to be selected and compression devices were used to seal the puncture site. The primary outcome was the rate of ambulatory failure in the ambulatory group.

Results: A total of 219 patients (68.5% male, 69.5 ± 12.8 years) were included in the analysis. Thereof 71 patients with 80 procedures were hospitalized, predominantly for social reasons (42/80, 52.5%) or emergency conditions (18/80, 22.5%). In the ambulatory group (148 patients), 183 procedures were performed, thereof 92.9% (170/183) with a 4F compatible equipment. Procedural success was 91.8% (168/183) in the ambulatory group and 82.5% (66/80) in the hospitalized group (P = 0.027). Patients in an ambulatory setting were younger and more frequently males. Ambulatory success was 99.2% (181/183). One puncture site complication was observed in each group but no other procedural complication, and all patients were alive after 1 month. In the ambulatory group, the mean follow-up was of 148 ± 260 days and in the hospitalized group, the mean follow-up was of 126 ± 199 days; no patient died during follow-up in the ambulatory group but 3 patients died in the hospitalized group.

Conclusions: Ambulatory endovascular procedures can be safely performed in a large proportion of patients with peripheral artery disease.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2022.02.017DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ambulatory group
16
ambulatory
12
patients
9
peripheral vascular
8
vascular interventions
8
ambulatory setting
8
single-center retrospective
8
retrospective analysis
8
peripheral artery
8
artery disease
8

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!