Transradial intervention versus transfemoral intervention accompanied with vascular closure device in acute myocardial infarction

Hwang, Hui‐Jeong; Kwon, Sung Jin; Park, Chang-Bum; Kim, Dong-Whee; Yang, In-Ho; Lee, Hyemin; Cho, Jin‐Man; Park, Hyun-Young; Jin, Eun‐Sun; Son, Il Seok; Kim, Chong‐Jin

doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.099

Cited by 3 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The search strategy, after removing duplicates, identified 912 potential articles ( Figure 1) of which 12 studies, [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] were included in the final analysis. Selected studies included four RCTs 14,15,21,24 and eight observational studies.…”

Section: Study Selection and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Selected studies included four RCTs 14,15,21,24 and eight observational studies. 13,[16][17][18][19][20]22,23 Characteristics of the included studies are highlighted in Table 1 Table 2. For the purpose of the meta-analysis, data was pooled from 12 studies for the outcome vascular complications, [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] eight studies for major bleeding, [13][14][15][16][17][22][23][24] and six studies for closure device failure.…”

Section: Study Selection and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13,[16][17][18][19][20]22,23 Characteristics of the included studies are highlighted in Table 1 Table 2. For the purpose of the meta-analysis, data was pooled from 12 studies for the outcome vascular complications, [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] eight studies for major bleeding, [13][14][15][16][17][22][23][24] and six studies for closure device failure. 15,[17][18][19][20]22 Studies using Femoseal, Exoseal, and Angioseal were categorized as the "vessel plugs" group [13][14][15][16][17][21][22][23][24] while those using Perclose and Techstar-suture were categorized as "suture devices."…”

Section: Study Selection and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Safety of transradial access compared to transfemoral access with hemostatic devices (vessel plugs and suture devices) after percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Chugh

Bavishi

Mojadidi

et al. 2020

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Comparing the safety of transradial access (TRA) and conventional hemostasis with transfemoral access (TFA) and vascular closure devices (vessel plugs and suture devices) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Background: TRA for PCIs is associated with fewer bleeding and vascular complications compared with TFA. Vascular closure devices (VCD) are often used post TFA to establish early hemostasis and mitigate bleeding risk. However, the comparative efficacy of TRA and TFA with VCDs remains controversial. Method: Electronic database were systematically searched for all pertinent studies from inception through January 2020. Randomized studies, registry data, and abstracts published in peer-reviewed indexed journals were included. The short-term outcomes: major bleeding, vascular complications, and closure device failure were evaluated. Random-effects model was used to pool individual study results. Results: Twelve studies (8 observational, 4 randomized) including 7,961 patients (TRA: 3,121 patients, TFA and vessel plugs: 3,157 patients, TFA & suture devices: 1,683 patients) were included in the analysis. Major bleeding was significantly lower with TRA compared with TFA and vessel plugs (odds ratio [OR] 0.22, 95%CI 0.11-0.44, p < .00001) and TFA & suture devices (OR 0.12, 95%CI 0.05-0.28, p < .00001). Vascular complications were significantly lower with TRA compared to TFA and vessel plugs (OR 0.25, 95%CI 0.13-0.49, p < .0001) and TFA & suture devices (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.04-0.41, p = 0.0005). Rates of closure device failure were lower for TRA compared to TFA & suture devices (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.04-0.41, p = .0005), but similar to TFA & vessel plugs (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.01-4.28, p = .33), although confidence intervals were wide. All analysis revealed a low to moderate level of heterogeneity.

show abstract

Section: Study Selection and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Selection and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Selection and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Safety of transradial access compared to transfemoral access with hemostatic devices (vessel plugs and suture devices) after percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Chugh

Bavishi

Mojadidi

et al. 2020

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, TRI is still in the underuse of the treatment of coronary artery disease due to some technical difficulties and challenges encountered, such as the difficulty of catheter manipulation . TFI has been also progressed to reduce bleeding events, resulting in fewer complications during PCI . Furthermore, owing to its long history of use, the wide availability of kinds of dedicated catheters, the possibility to develop relatively large‐diameter catheters and sheaths, the TFI is currently preferred and used widely in most cardiac catheterization worldwide…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9][10][11] TFI has been also progressed to reduce bleeding events, resulting in fewer complications during PCI. 12 Furthermore, owing to its long history of use, the wide availability of kinds of dedicated catheters, the possibility to develop relatively large-diameter catheters and sheaths, the TFI is currently preferred and used widely in most cardiac catheterization worldwide. 13 Nevertheless, the approach to complex coronary lesions is still a challenging problem in TFI, 14 due to the insufficient backup support of guiding catheter.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite element analysis for mechanics of guiding catheters in transfemoral intervention

Wang

Wan

et al. 2019

J Card Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background During the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the strong backup support of a guiding catheters is essential in reaching a target coronary lesion successfully. Nevertheless, it is difficult to explore the mechanics of a guiding catheter by analytical and experimental methods due to its complex deformation and interactions among guiding catheter, guide wire, and artery. In this study, the finite element method was used to analyze the backup support of a guiding catheter in transfemoral intervention (TFI). Methods A finite element model was established in the light of geometric, mechanical properties of the guiding catheter and boundary con ditions. To validate the finite element model, an arterial tree model was constructed to measure the backup force of the guiding catheters in TFI. Then, the process of the guiding catheter disengaged from the ostium was analyzed. Results The influencing rules of the geometric parameters of the guiding catheter on its backup support in TFI were obtained with the help of the finite element model. The result shows that the larger the outer diameter and wall thickness, the greater the backup support, 2.0 to 2.3 mm of the outer diameter was suggested. When designing a guiding catheter, it is wise to avoid α, the angle between the line and wall of the artery, being within 60° and 75° and it is a better choice if the contact length is between 5 and 12 mm. Conclusions This study sought to investigate the influencing rules of the geometric parameters of the guiding catheter on its backup support in transfemoral intervention. A finite element model for analyzing the backup support of a guiding catheter was validated by experiments. It indicated that the finite element method can analyze the varied laws of the guiding catheter with different geometric parameters.

show abstract

Network meta-analysis of studies comparing closure devices for femoral access after percutaneous coronary intervention

Iannaccone

Saint‐Hilary

Menardi

et al. 2018

Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Transradial intervention versus transfemoral intervention accompanied with vascular closure device in acute myocardial infarction

Cited by 3 publications

References 7 publications

Safety of transradial access compared to transfemoral access with hemostatic devices (vessel plugs and suture devices) after percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Safety of transradial access compared to transfemoral access with hemostatic devices (vessel plugs and suture devices) after percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Finite element analysis for mechanics of guiding catheters in transfemoral intervention

Network meta-analysis of studies comparing closure devices for femoral access after percutaneous coronary intervention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About