Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1055/s-0035-1563607 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1055/s-0035-1563607 C5001865!5001865!27574380     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Int+J+Angiol 2016 ; 25 (3): 148-52 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=27574380|t=2016. Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Peripheral Arterial Interventions |pdf=|usr=}}{{27574380}} gab.com Text Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Peripheral Arterial Interventions JO: Int J Angiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27574380 #FOAvip This study aims to compare the clinical and procedural characteristics, including iatrogenic complications, of transradial versus transfemoral approach in patients who underwent peripheral arterial interventions.We retrospectively analyzed data of 72 patients who had undergone interventions of peripheral arteries in the preceding 3 years. Of all the procedures, 39 were performed using the transfemoral approach and 33 using the transradial approach. We assessed baseline clinical factors as well as procedure-related parameters (volume of contrast media, the amount of radiation, and duration of radiation exposure), rates of primary success, and acute vascular, access-site, or neurological complications.Patients whose interventions were done via transradial access had similar demographic characteristics to those who had transfemoral angioplasties. The presence of cardiovascular risk factors was similar in the two groups, but patients in the transradial subset were significantly more likely to have dyslipidemia (90.9 vs.71.7%, p value?=?0.04) and less likely to have baseline chronic kidney disease (3.0 vs. 23.0%, p value?=?0.01). The length of admission was shorter for patients who underwent transradial interventions compared with the transfemoral approach (1.1 vs. 1.3 days, p value?=?0.04). Fluoroscopy time, the amount of radiation, and the volume of contrast media were similar between the two groups. Rates of primary success and periprocedural complications did not differ between the two groups.The transradial route appears to be a viable, safe, and noninferior alternative to the transfemoral approach for treatment of atherosclerotic stenosis in peripheral arterial territories. Prospective studies are needed. Twit Text FOAVip Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Peripheral Arterial Interventions ????Int J Angiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27574380 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27574380 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|27574380}}</ref> Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Peripheral Arterial Interventions #MMPMID27574380 Oren O; Oren M; Turgeman Y Int J Angiol 2016[Sep]; 25 (3): 148-52 PMID27574380show ga This study aims to compare the clinical and procedural characteristics, including iatrogenic complications, of transradial versus transfemoral approach in patients who underwent peripheral arterial interventions.We retrospectively analyzed data of 72 patients who had undergone interventions of peripheral arteries in the preceding 3 years. Of all the procedures, 39 were performed using the transfemoral approach and 33 using the transradial approach. We assessed baseline clinical factors as well as procedure-related parameters (volume of contrast media, the amount of radiation, and duration of radiation exposure), rates of primary success, and acute vascular, access-site, or neurological complications.Patients whose interventions were done via transradial access had similar demographic characteristics to those who had transfemoral angioplasties. The presence of cardiovascular risk factors was similar in the two groups, but patients in the transradial subset were significantly more likely to have dyslipidemia (90.9 vs.71.7%, p value?=?0.04) and less likely to have baseline chronic kidney disease (3.0 vs. 23.0%, p value?=?0.01). The length of admission was shorter for patients who underwent transradial interventions compared with the transfemoral approach (1.1 vs. 1.3 days, p value?=?0.04). Fluoroscopy time, the amount of radiation, and the volume of contrast media were similar between the two groups. Rates of primary success and periprocedural complications did not differ between the two groups.The transradial route appears to be a viable, safe, and noninferior alternative to the transfemoral approach for treatment of atherosclerotic stenosis in peripheral arterial territories. Prospective studies are needed. äTransradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Peripheral Arterial Interv(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing