Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 82

1.

Let's not abandon transfemoral intervention just yet.

Lee MS.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Feb;83(2):336-8. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25132. No abstract available.

PMID:
23873610
2.

Transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes: re-evaluation of the current body of evidence.

Lee MS, Wolfe M, Stone GW.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Nov;6(11):1149-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.08.003. Review.

3.

Costs of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention.

Amin AP, House JA, Safley DM, Chhatriwalla AK, Giersiefen H, Bremer A, Hamon M, Baklanov DV, Aluko A, Wohns D, Mathias DW, Applegate RA, Cohen DJ, Marso SP.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Aug;6(8):827-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.04.014.

4.

Anticoagulation in transradial percutaneous coronary intervention.

Appleton DL, Cooke RH, Rao SV, Jovin IS.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Feb;83(2):237-42. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25060. Review.

PMID:
23766092
5.

The transradial versus the transfemoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jang JS, Jin HY, Seo JS, Yang TH, Kim DK, Kim DK, Kim DI, Cho KI, Kim BH, Park YH, Je HG, Kim DS.

EuroIntervention. 2012 Aug;8(4):501-10. doi: 10.4244/EIJV8I4A78. Review.

6.

Risk score, causes, and clinical impact of failure of transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions.

Abdelaal E, Brousseau-Provencher C, Montminy S, Plourde G, MacHaalany J, Bataille Y, Molin P, Déry JP, Barbeau G, Roy L, Larose É, De Larochellière R, Nguyen CM, Proulx G, Costerousse O, Bertrand OF; Interventional Cardiologists at Quebec Heart-Lung Institute..

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Nov;6(11):1129-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.05.019.

7.

Full conversion from transfemoral to transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions results in a similar success rate and a rapid reduction of in-hospital cardiac and vascular major events.

Dangoisse V, Guédès A, Gabriel L, Jamart J, Chenu P, Marchandise B, Schroeder E.

EuroIntervention. 2013 Jul;9(3):345-52. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9I3A56.

8.

The religious fervor for the radial approach.

King SB 3rd.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Mar;8(3):501-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.01.007. No abstract available.

9.
10.

Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Karrowni W, Vyas A, Giacomino B, Schweizer M, Blevins A, Girotra S, Horwitz PA.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Aug;6(8):814-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.04.010. Review.

11.

Diffusion of innovations and adoption of transradial intervention.

Abbott JD.

Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Jun;6(3):199-200. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.113.000541. No abstract available.

12.

Coronary intervention: radial artery access comes of age.

Jolly SS, Mehta SR.

Lancet. 2015 Jun 20;385(9986):2437-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60507-4. No abstract available.

PMID:
25791213
13.

Transitioning to the radial artery as the preferred access site for cardiac catheterization: an academic medical center experience.

Turner S, Sacrinty M, Manogue M, Little W, Gandhi S, Kutcher M, Santos R, Applegate R.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Aug 1;80(2):247-57. doi: 10.1002/ccd.23387.

PMID:
22162430
14.

Comparison of transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in routine practice: evidence for the importance of "falsification hypotheses" in observational studies of comparative effectiveness.

Wimmer NJ, Resnic FS, Mauri L, Matheny ME, Yeh RW.

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Dec 3;62(22):2147-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.036. No abstract available.

15.

Comparing radial with femoral artery access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the benefits and risks.

Shroff A, Pancholy S, Sawlani N.

Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2013 May;11(5):525-7. doi: 10.1586/erc.13.41. No abstract available.

PMID:
23621133
16.

Radial versus femoral approach comparison in percutaneous coronary intervention with intraaortic balloon pump support: the RADIAL PUMP UP registry.

Romagnoli E, De Vita M, Burzotta F, Cortese B, Biondi-Zoccai G, Summaria F, Patrizi R, Lanzillo C, Lucci V, Cavazza C, Tarantino F, Sangiorgi GM, Lioy E, Crea F, Rao SV, Trani C.

Am Heart J. 2013 Dec;166(6):1019-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.09.009.

PMID:
24268216
17.

Adoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007-2012).

Feldman DN, Swaminathan RV, Kaltenbach LA, Baklanov DV, Kim LK, Wong SC, Minutello RM, Messenger JC, Moussa I, Garratt KN, Piana RN, Hillegass WB, Cohen MG, Gilchrist IC, Rao SV.

Circulation. 2013 Jun 11;127(23):2295-306. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000536.

18.

Influence of access site choice on incidence of neurologic complications after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Ratib K, Mamas MA, Routledge HC, Ludman PF, Fraser D, Nolan J.

Am Heart J. 2013 Mar;165(3):317-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.10.015.

PMID:
23453099
19.

Invasive thoughts: Should we abandon femoral access for STEMIs?

Goldberg SL.

J Invasive Cardiol. 2013 May;25(5):210. No abstract available.

20.

Response to letters regarding article, "Risk of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary interventions using radial versus femoral vascular access: insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium".

Kooiman J, Seth M, Dixon S, Wohns D, LaLonde T, Rao SV, Gurm HS.

Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jun;7(3):421. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001590. No abstract available.

Supplemental Content

Support Center