Feasibility of Ambulatory Percutaneous Femoral Access without the Use of Arterial Closure Systems

Gouicem, Djelloul; Palcău, Laura; Camelière, Lucie; Dufranc, Julie; Coffin, Olivier; Berger, L.

doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2013.06.007

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these studies were mostly performed with sheaths larger than 4F. In our study, the rate of ambulatory failure was 5% in both the groups, and thus was within the 0-27.3% range as reported in the literature [6][7][8]18].…”

Section: Ambulatory Failuresupporting

confidence: 83%

Clinical Outcomes of Ambulatory Endovascular Treatment Using 4-French and 6-French Femoral Access Strategies: The Bio4amb Multicentre Trial

Brodmann

Deloose

Steinmetz

et al. 2020

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Ambulatory peripheral vascular interventions have been steadily increasing. In ambulatory procedures, 4F devices might be particularly useful having the potential to reduce access-site complications; however, further evidence on their safety and efficacy is needed. Materials and Methods BIO4AMB is a prospective, non-randomized mulitcentre, non-inferiority trial conducted in 35 centres in Europe and Australia comparing the use of 4F- and 6F-compatible devices. The main exclusion criteria included an American Society of Anaesthesiologists class ≥ 4, coagulation disorders, or social isolation. The primary endpoint was access-site complications within 30 days. Results The 4F group enrolled 390 patients and the 6F group 404 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Vascular closure devices were used in 7.7% (4F group) and 87.6% (6F group) of patients. Patients with vascular closure device use in the 4F group were subsequently excluded from the primary analysis, resulting in 361 patients in the 4F group. Time to haemostasis was longer for the 4F group, but the total procedure time was shorter (13.2 ± 18.8 vs. 6.4 ± 8.9 min, p < 0.0001, and 39.1 ± 25.2 vs. 46.4 ± 27.6 min, p < 0.0001). Discharge on the day of the procedure was possible in 95.0% (4F group) and 94.6% (6F group) of patients. Access-site complications were similar between the groups (2.8% and 3.2%) and included predominantly groin haematomas and pseudoaneurysms. Major adverse events through 30 days occurred in 1.7% and 2.0%, respectively. Conclusions Ambulatory peripheral vascular interventions are feasible and safe. The use of 4F devices resulted in similar outcomes compared to that of 6F devices.

show abstract

Section: Ambulatory Failuresupporting

confidence: 83%

Clinical Outcomes of Ambulatory Endovascular Treatment Using 4-French and 6-French Femoral Access Strategies: The Bio4amb Multicentre Trial

Brodmann

Deloose

Steinmetz

et al. 2020

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the prospective multicenter RIVAL (Radial vs. Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes) study [15,17] rates of major vascular complications (large hematomas, pseudoaneurysm needing closure, arteriovenous fistula) and minor bleeding with femoral access were 3.7% and 3.4%, respectively. Another issue with femoral access is the need for patients to stay supine several hours after the procedure [15,21,22]. In the current era, the femoral artery is considered to be the firstchoice access site for percutaneous peripheral approach.…”

Section: Case Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adenosine dysfunction in Rasmussens encephalitis

Li¹,

Gao²,

Luan³

2016

Neuropsychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…19,20 Early ambulation after femoral artery puncture is feasible, 20-24 especially when using vascular closure devices. In our study, we kept our patients supine for 2 hours after the procedure as a precaution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percutaneous radial access for peripheral transluminal angioplasty

Coscas

Blic

Capdevila

et al. 2015

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study demonstrates the feasibility of radial access for peripheral PTA. Radial access could represent an alternative to brachial access for peripheral and visceral interventions. Although complication rates of the present series are concerning, larger studies are needed to determine the role of transradial PTA once the learning curve is overcome. A wider diffusion of the technique mandates (1) smaller-diameter sheaths, (2) longer shaft devices, and (3) the development of specifically designed rescue devices such as covered stents and thromboaspiration catheters.

show abstract

Feasibility of Ambulatory Percutaneous Femoral Access without the Use of Arterial Closure Systems

Cited by 14 publications

References 12 publications

Clinical Outcomes of Ambulatory Endovascular Treatment Using 4-French and 6-French Femoral Access Strategies: The Bio4amb Multicentre Trial

Clinical Outcomes of Ambulatory Endovascular Treatment Using 4-French and 6-French Femoral Access Strategies: The Bio4amb Multicentre Trial

Adenosine dysfunction in Rasmussens encephalitis

Percutaneous radial access for peripheral transluminal angioplasty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About