Clinical Outcomes of Ambulatory Endovascular Treatment Using 4-French and 6-French Femoral Access Strategies: The Bio4amb Multicentre Trial

Purpose Ambulatory peripheral vascular interventions have been steadily increasing. In ambulatory procedures, 4F devices might be particularly useful having the potential to reduce access-site complications; however, further evidence on their safety and efficacy is needed. Materials and Methods BIO4...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 2021-05, Vol.44 (5), p.689-697
Hauptverfasser: Brodmann, Marianne, Deloose, Koen, Steinmetz, Eric, Regnard, Olivier, Ritter, Jens C., Berger, Ludovic, Dahm, Johannes B., Jansen, Shirley, Mwipatayi, Bibombe P., Desgranges, Pascal, Hausegger, Klaus, van den Berg, Jos C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose Ambulatory peripheral vascular interventions have been steadily increasing. In ambulatory procedures, 4F devices might be particularly useful having the potential to reduce access-site complications; however, further evidence on their safety and efficacy is needed. Materials and Methods BIO4AMB is a prospective, non-randomized mulitcentre, non-inferiority trial conducted in 35 centres in Europe and Australia comparing the use of 4F- and 6F-compatible devices. The main exclusion criteria included an American Society of Anaesthesiologists class ≥ 4, coagulation disorders, or social isolation. The primary endpoint was access-site complications within 30 days. Results The 4F group enrolled 390 patients and the 6F group 404 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Vascular closure devices were used in 7.7% (4F group) and 87.6% (6F group) of patients. Patients with vascular closure device use in the 4F group were subsequently excluded from the primary analysis, resulting in 361 patients in the 4F group. Time to haemostasis was longer for the 4F group, but the total procedure time was shorter (13.2 ± 18.8 vs. 6.4 ± 8.9 min, p 
ISSN:0174-1551
1432-086X
DOI:10.1007/s00270-020-02738-5