Effectiveness of femoral arterial closure devices compared to traditional compression methods following femoral sheath removal: A Systematic Review.

A. Cyr, Tara Byxbe
{"title":"Effectiveness of femoral arterial closure devices compared to traditional compression methods following femoral sheath removal: A Systematic Review.","authors":"A. Cyr, Tara Byxbe","doi":"10.11124/JBISRIR-2011-410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Review Questions/Objectives \nThe systematic review objective is to synthesise the best available research evidence related to the effectiveness of femoral arterial closure devices as compared to traditional compression methods post femoral sheath removal in the cardiovascular patient. \n \nThe specific review question to be addressed is: \n• What effects do femoral arterial closure devices, as compared to traditional compression methods, have on outcomes post femoral sheath removal in the cardiovascular patient? \n \nInclusion Criteria \n \nTypes of participants \nThis review will consider studies that included all types of cardiovascular adult patients (18+ years old) with post femoral sheath removal following endovascular procedures regardless of previous treatments. \n \nThe femoral artery is preferable access site due to the larger diameter of the artery compared to the radial or brachial arteries. Due to the larger diameter of the femoral artery, time to hemostatis and complications are significantly different than that of the brachial or radial arteries.For accurate comparison, patients undergoing procedures using radial or brachial access will not be included. \n \nTypes of interventions \nThe interventions of interest are arterial closure devices and traditional compression methods used following femoral arterial sheath removal. Studies that compare arterial closure devices and compression methods post endovascular procedure will be included in this review. Similarly, studies that compare various compression methods post endovascular procedure will be included in this review. Studies that compare radial or brachial access to femoral access and hemostasis will not be included in this review to allow for accurate comparison. Femoral access has significantly differing times to hemostatis and complication rates than radial or brachial access. \n \nTypes of outcome measures \nThe primary outcome of interest is the difference in effectiveness of femoral arterial closure devices and traditional compression methods on patient outcomes. Studies meeting criteria for participants and intervention which include outcomes related to bleeding risks and vascular complications, such as hematoma, bleeding at the site, retroperitoneal bleeding, pseudoanuerysm, and AV-fistula creation will be considered for inclusion in this review. In addition, studies describing attainment of hemostasis following femoral sheath removal will be considered.","PeriodicalId":91723,"journal":{"name":"JBI library of systematic reviews","volume":"9 32 Suppl 1","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI library of systematic reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2011-410","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Review Questions/Objectives The systematic review objective is to synthesise the best available research evidence related to the effectiveness of femoral arterial closure devices as compared to traditional compression methods post femoral sheath removal in the cardiovascular patient. The specific review question to be addressed is: • What effects do femoral arterial closure devices, as compared to traditional compression methods, have on outcomes post femoral sheath removal in the cardiovascular patient? Inclusion Criteria Types of participants This review will consider studies that included all types of cardiovascular adult patients (18+ years old) with post femoral sheath removal following endovascular procedures regardless of previous treatments. The femoral artery is preferable access site due to the larger diameter of the artery compared to the radial or brachial arteries. Due to the larger diameter of the femoral artery, time to hemostatis and complications are significantly different than that of the brachial or radial arteries.For accurate comparison, patients undergoing procedures using radial or brachial access will not be included. Types of interventions The interventions of interest are arterial closure devices and traditional compression methods used following femoral arterial sheath removal. Studies that compare arterial closure devices and compression methods post endovascular procedure will be included in this review. Similarly, studies that compare various compression methods post endovascular procedure will be included in this review. Studies that compare radial or brachial access to femoral access and hemostasis will not be included in this review to allow for accurate comparison. Femoral access has significantly differing times to hemostatis and complication rates than radial or brachial access. Types of outcome measures The primary outcome of interest is the difference in effectiveness of femoral arterial closure devices and traditional compression methods on patient outcomes. Studies meeting criteria for participants and intervention which include outcomes related to bleeding risks and vascular complications, such as hematoma, bleeding at the site, retroperitoneal bleeding, pseudoanuerysm, and AV-fistula creation will be considered for inclusion in this review. In addition, studies describing attainment of hemostasis following femoral sheath removal will be considered.
与传统加压方法相比,股动脉封闭装置在股鞘去除后的有效性:一项系统综述。
系统评价的目的是综合现有的最佳研究证据,与传统的加压方法相比,在心血管患者股骨鞘去除后,股动脉封闭装置的有效性。需要解决的具体综述问题是:•与传统的压迫方法相比,股动脉闭合装置对心血管患者股鞘切除后的结果有什么影响?纳入标准参与者类型本综述将纳入所有类型的心血管成年患者(18岁以上),在血管内手术后切除股鞘,无论既往治疗情况如何。由于股动脉的直径比桡动脉或肱动脉大,因此股动脉是较好的入路。由于股动脉直径较大,止血时间和并发症明显不同于肱动脉或桡动脉。为了进行准确的比较,不包括采用桡动脉或肱动脉通路的患者。干预措施的类型主要是动脉闭合装置和传统的股动脉鞘切除后的压迫方法。比较血管内手术后动脉闭合装置和压迫方法的研究将包括在本综述中。同样,比较血管内手术后各种压迫方法的研究也将包括在本综述中。为了进行准确的比较,本综述不包括桡骨或肱动脉入路与股动脉入路及止血的比较研究。股骨入路止血时间和并发症发生率明显不同于桡骨或肱入路。主要关注的结果是股动脉闭合装置和传统压迫方法对患者结果的有效性差异。符合受试者和干预标准的研究,包括与出血风险和血管并发症相关的结果,如血肿、部位出血、腹膜后出血、假性动脉瘤和av瘘形成,将被考虑纳入本综述。此外,将考虑描述股骨鞘切除后止血效果的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信