A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Access for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is obtained through surgical cutdown or percutaneously. The only devices suitable for percutaneous closure of the 20 French arteriotomies of the common femoral artery (CFA) are the Prostar(™) and Proglide(™) devices (Abbott Vascular...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine 2015-09, Vol.16 (1), p.408-408, Article 408 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 408 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 408 |
container_title | Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine |
container_volume | 16 |
creator | Vierhout, Bastiaan P Saleem, Ben R Ott, Alewijn van Dijl, Jan Maarten de Kempenaer, Ties D van Andringa Pierie, Maurice E N Bottema, Jan T Zeebregts, Clark J |
description | Access for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is obtained through surgical cutdown or percutaneously. The only devices suitable for percutaneous closure of the 20 French arteriotomies of the common femoral artery (CFA) are the Prostar(™) and Proglide(™) devices (Abbott Vascular). Positive effects of these devices seem to consist of a lower infection rate, and shorter operation time and hospital stay. This conclusion was published in previous reports comparing techniques in patients in two different groups (cohort or randomized). Access techniques were never compared in one and the same patient; this research simplifies comparison because patient characteristics will be similar in both groups.
Percutaneous access of the CFA is compared to surgical cutdown in a single patient; in EVAR surgery, access is necessary in both groins in each patient. Randomization is performed on the introduction site of the larger main device of the endoprosthesis. The contralateral device of the endoprosthesis is smaller. When we use this type of randomization, both groups will contain a similar number of main and contralateral devices. Preoperative nose cultures and perineal cultures are obtained, to compare colonization with postoperative wound cultures (in case of a surgical site infection). Furthermore, patient comfort will be considered, using VAS-scores (Visual analog scale). Punch biopsies of the groin will be harvested to retrospectively compare skin of patients who suffered a surgical site infection (SSI) to patients who did not have an SSI.
The PiERO trial is a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial designed to show the consequences of using percutaneous access in EVAR surgery and focuses on the occurrence of surgical site infections.
NTR4257 10 November 2013, NL44578.042.13. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s13063-015-0911-y |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4570236</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A541597923</galeid><sourcerecordid>A541597923</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c597t-30ec00b0cba541eb576facf041f242eaed331708281f86d14486c9b2727105733</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1rFDEYhQdR7If-AG8k4E29mJrvzHhRWMpWhcKWotchm3lTUzKTMZlZWP-If9csW2tbvJBcJCTnHN48nKp6Q_ApIY38kAnDktWYiBq3hNTbZ9UhUVzUkhLx_MH5oDrK-RZjzlrGX1YHVDKFaSMPq18LZGM_muRzHFB06AqSnSczQJwzctDHZAIy1kLOyA9oOXRxY7Kdg0noGkbjE9pAykW8GmF46ji58svr1fuPKE9zt0VjilO0MSAXEzIomZLW-5_QlSGGKcUQynFK3oRX1QtnQobXd_tx9e1i-fX8c325-vTlfHFZW9GqqWYYLMZrbNdGcAJroaQz1mFOHOUUDHSMEYUb2hDXyI5w3kjbrqmiimChGDuuzva547zuobNQxjBBj8n3Jm11NF4_fhn8d30TN5qLQpDJEnByF5DijxnypHufLYSwR6iJkk2Zikr6H1JClWoUb4v03RPpbZzTUEhoqlpBpRAY_1XdmADaDy6WEe0uVC8KjkKopbsvnv5DVVYHvS_cwfly_8hA9gabYs4J3D0OgvWueHpfPF2Kp3fF09viefuQ473jT9PYbzzR1Es</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2795265500</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Vierhout, Bastiaan P ; Saleem, Ben R ; Ott, Alewijn ; van Dijl, Jan Maarten ; de Kempenaer, Ties D van Andringa ; Pierie, Maurice E N ; Bottema, Jan T ; Zeebregts, Clark J</creator><creatorcontrib>Vierhout, Bastiaan P ; Saleem, Ben R ; Ott, Alewijn ; van Dijl, Jan Maarten ; de Kempenaer, Ties D van Andringa ; Pierie, Maurice E N ; Bottema, Jan T ; Zeebregts, Clark J</creatorcontrib><description>Access for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is obtained through surgical cutdown or percutaneously. The only devices suitable for percutaneous closure of the 20 French arteriotomies of the common femoral artery (CFA) are the Prostar(™) and Proglide(™) devices (Abbott Vascular). Positive effects of these devices seem to consist of a lower infection rate, and shorter operation time and hospital stay. This conclusion was published in previous reports comparing techniques in patients in two different groups (cohort or randomized). Access techniques were never compared in one and the same patient; this research simplifies comparison because patient characteristics will be similar in both groups.
Percutaneous access of the CFA is compared to surgical cutdown in a single patient; in EVAR surgery, access is necessary in both groins in each patient. Randomization is performed on the introduction site of the larger main device of the endoprosthesis. The contralateral device of the endoprosthesis is smaller. When we use this type of randomization, both groups will contain a similar number of main and contralateral devices. Preoperative nose cultures and perineal cultures are obtained, to compare colonization with postoperative wound cultures (in case of a surgical site infection). Furthermore, patient comfort will be considered, using VAS-scores (Visual analog scale). Punch biopsies of the groin will be harvested to retrospectively compare skin of patients who suffered a surgical site infection (SSI) to patients who did not have an SSI.
The PiERO trial is a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial designed to show the consequences of using percutaneous access in EVAR surgery and focuses on the occurrence of surgical site infections.
NTR4257 10 November 2013, NL44578.042.13.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1745-6215</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1745-6215</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0911-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26370286</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Aneurysms ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnosis ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery ; Aortic aneurysms ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - methods ; Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects ; Catheterization, Peripheral - methods ; Clinical Protocols ; Clinical trials ; Comparative analysis ; Coronary vessels ; Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects ; Endovascular Procedures - methods ; Ethics ; Femoral Artery - surgery ; Health aspects ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Infection ; Informed consent ; Medical research ; Medicine, Experimental ; Morphology ; Netherlands ; Patients ; Research Design ; Risk Factors ; Study Protocol ; Surgical site infections ; Surgical Wound Infection - diagnosis ; Surgical Wound Infection - microbiology ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome ; Veins & arteries ; Wound Healing</subject><ispartof>Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine, 2015-09, Vol.16 (1), p.408-408, Article 408</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>Vierhout et al. 2015. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Vierhout et al. 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c597t-30ec00b0cba541eb576facf041f242eaed331708281f86d14486c9b2727105733</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c597t-30ec00b0cba541eb576facf041f242eaed331708281f86d14486c9b2727105733</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4570236/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4570236/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26370286$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vierhout, Bastiaan P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saleem, Ben R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ott, Alewijn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Dijl, Jan Maarten</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Kempenaer, Ties D van Andringa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pierie, Maurice E N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bottema, Jan T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeebregts, Clark J</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial</title><title>Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine</title><addtitle>Trials</addtitle><description>Access for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is obtained through surgical cutdown or percutaneously. The only devices suitable for percutaneous closure of the 20 French arteriotomies of the common femoral artery (CFA) are the Prostar(™) and Proglide(™) devices (Abbott Vascular). Positive effects of these devices seem to consist of a lower infection rate, and shorter operation time and hospital stay. This conclusion was published in previous reports comparing techniques in patients in two different groups (cohort or randomized). Access techniques were never compared in one and the same patient; this research simplifies comparison because patient characteristics will be similar in both groups.
Percutaneous access of the CFA is compared to surgical cutdown in a single patient; in EVAR surgery, access is necessary in both groins in each patient. Randomization is performed on the introduction site of the larger main device of the endoprosthesis. The contralateral device of the endoprosthesis is smaller. When we use this type of randomization, both groups will contain a similar number of main and contralateral devices. Preoperative nose cultures and perineal cultures are obtained, to compare colonization with postoperative wound cultures (in case of a surgical site infection). Furthermore, patient comfort will be considered, using VAS-scores (Visual analog scale). Punch biopsies of the groin will be harvested to retrospectively compare skin of patients who suffered a surgical site infection (SSI) to patients who did not have an SSI.
The PiERO trial is a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial designed to show the consequences of using percutaneous access in EVAR surgery and focuses on the occurrence of surgical site infections.
NTR4257 10 November 2013, NL44578.042.13.</description><subject>Aneurysms</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnosis</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery</subject><subject>Aortic aneurysms</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - methods</subject><subject>Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects</subject><subject>Catheterization, Peripheral - methods</subject><subject>Clinical Protocols</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Coronary vessels</subject><subject>Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>Endovascular Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Femoral Artery - surgery</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infection</subject><subject>Informed consent</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Study Protocol</subject><subject>Surgical site infections</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection - diagnosis</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection - microbiology</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Veins & arteries</subject><subject>Wound Healing</subject><issn>1745-6215</issn><issn>1745-6215</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1rFDEYhQdR7If-AG8k4E29mJrvzHhRWMpWhcKWotchm3lTUzKTMZlZWP-If9csW2tbvJBcJCTnHN48nKp6Q_ApIY38kAnDktWYiBq3hNTbZ9UhUVzUkhLx_MH5oDrK-RZjzlrGX1YHVDKFaSMPq18LZGM_muRzHFB06AqSnSczQJwzctDHZAIy1kLOyA9oOXRxY7Kdg0noGkbjE9pAykW8GmF46ji58svr1fuPKE9zt0VjilO0MSAXEzIomZLW-5_QlSGGKcUQynFK3oRX1QtnQobXd_tx9e1i-fX8c325-vTlfHFZW9GqqWYYLMZrbNdGcAJroaQz1mFOHOUUDHSMEYUb2hDXyI5w3kjbrqmiimChGDuuzva547zuobNQxjBBj8n3Jm11NF4_fhn8d30TN5qLQpDJEnByF5DijxnypHufLYSwR6iJkk2Zikr6H1JClWoUb4v03RPpbZzTUEhoqlpBpRAY_1XdmADaDy6WEe0uVC8KjkKopbsvnv5DVVYHvS_cwfly_8hA9gabYs4J3D0OgvWueHpfPF2Kp3fF09viefuQ473jT9PYbzzR1Es</recordid><startdate>20150914</startdate><enddate>20150914</enddate><creator>Vierhout, Bastiaan P</creator><creator>Saleem, Ben R</creator><creator>Ott, Alewijn</creator><creator>van Dijl, Jan Maarten</creator><creator>de Kempenaer, Ties D van Andringa</creator><creator>Pierie, Maurice E N</creator><creator>Bottema, Jan T</creator><creator>Zeebregts, Clark J</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150914</creationdate><title>A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial</title><author>Vierhout, Bastiaan P ; Saleem, Ben R ; Ott, Alewijn ; van Dijl, Jan Maarten ; de Kempenaer, Ties D van Andringa ; Pierie, Maurice E N ; Bottema, Jan T ; Zeebregts, Clark J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c597t-30ec00b0cba541eb576facf041f242eaed331708281f86d14486c9b2727105733</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Aneurysms</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnosis</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery</topic><topic>Aortic aneurysms</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - methods</topic><topic>Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects</topic><topic>Catheterization, Peripheral - methods</topic><topic>Clinical Protocols</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Coronary vessels</topic><topic>Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>Endovascular Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Femoral Artery - surgery</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infection</topic><topic>Informed consent</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Study Protocol</topic><topic>Surgical site infections</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection - diagnosis</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection - microbiology</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Veins & arteries</topic><topic>Wound Healing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vierhout, Bastiaan P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saleem, Ben R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ott, Alewijn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Dijl, Jan Maarten</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Kempenaer, Ties D van Andringa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pierie, Maurice E N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bottema, Jan T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeebregts, Clark J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vierhout, Bastiaan P</au><au>Saleem, Ben R</au><au>Ott, Alewijn</au><au>van Dijl, Jan Maarten</au><au>de Kempenaer, Ties D van Andringa</au><au>Pierie, Maurice E N</au><au>Bottema, Jan T</au><au>Zeebregts, Clark J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial</atitle><jtitle>Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Trials</addtitle><date>2015-09-14</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>408</spage><epage>408</epage><pages>408-408</pages><artnum>408</artnum><issn>1745-6215</issn><eissn>1745-6215</eissn><abstract>Access for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is obtained through surgical cutdown or percutaneously. The only devices suitable for percutaneous closure of the 20 French arteriotomies of the common femoral artery (CFA) are the Prostar(™) and Proglide(™) devices (Abbott Vascular). Positive effects of these devices seem to consist of a lower infection rate, and shorter operation time and hospital stay. This conclusion was published in previous reports comparing techniques in patients in two different groups (cohort or randomized). Access techniques were never compared in one and the same patient; this research simplifies comparison because patient characteristics will be similar in both groups.
Percutaneous access of the CFA is compared to surgical cutdown in a single patient; in EVAR surgery, access is necessary in both groins in each patient. Randomization is performed on the introduction site of the larger main device of the endoprosthesis. The contralateral device of the endoprosthesis is smaller. When we use this type of randomization, both groups will contain a similar number of main and contralateral devices. Preoperative nose cultures and perineal cultures are obtained, to compare colonization with postoperative wound cultures (in case of a surgical site infection). Furthermore, patient comfort will be considered, using VAS-scores (Visual analog scale). Punch biopsies of the groin will be harvested to retrospectively compare skin of patients who suffered a surgical site infection (SSI) to patients who did not have an SSI.
The PiERO trial is a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial designed to show the consequences of using percutaneous access in EVAR surgery and focuses on the occurrence of surgical site infections.
NTR4257 10 November 2013, NL44578.042.13.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>26370286</pmid><doi>10.1186/s13063-015-0911-y</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1745-6215 |
ispartof | Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine, 2015-09, Vol.16 (1), p.408-408, Article 408 |
issn | 1745-6215 1745-6215 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4570236 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; PubMed Central; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Aneurysms Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnosis Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery Aortic aneurysms Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - methods Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects Catheterization, Peripheral - methods Clinical Protocols Clinical trials Comparative analysis Coronary vessels Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects Endovascular Procedures - methods Ethics Femoral Artery - surgery Health aspects Hospitals Humans Infection Informed consent Medical research Medicine, Experimental Morphology Netherlands Patients Research Design Risk Factors Study Protocol Surgical site infections Surgical Wound Infection - diagnosis Surgical Wound Infection - microbiology Time Factors Treatment Outcome Veins & arteries Wound Healing |
title | A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T10%3A46%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20Percutaneous%20femoral%20access%20in%20Endovascular%20Repair%20versus%20Open%20femoral%20access%20(PiERO):%20study%20protocol%20for%20a%20randomized%20controlled%20trial&rft.jtitle=Current%20controlled%20trials%20in%20cardiovascular%20medicine&rft.au=Vierhout,%20Bastiaan%20P&rft.date=2015-09-14&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=408&rft.epage=408&rft.pages=408-408&rft.artnum=408&rft.issn=1745-6215&rft.eissn=1745-6215&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s13063-015-0911-y&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA541597923%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2795265500&rft_id=info:pmid/26370286&rft_galeid=A541597923&rfr_iscdi=true |