ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2024
Two-year outcomes of endovascular therapy for femoropopliteal arterial lesions for patients with high bleeding risk.
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized controlled trial of drug-coated balloon versus conventional balloon angioplasty in diabetic patients with lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans: outcomes in ankle-brachial index and restenosis rate.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2026Article
- Standard and Non-standard Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Ischemic Heart Disease and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Clinical Review.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Review
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Acute Cardiovascular Care.Circulation reports · 2025Review
- Antithrombotic Management in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Clinical Review.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Review
- Comparable clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing endovascular treatment for aorto-iliac or femoropopliteal lesions.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Validation of High Ischemic and Bleeding Risk Criteria of European Guidelines in Peripheral Arterial Disease.JACC. Asia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Academic Research Consortium (ARC) recently published a definition of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the prevalence of the ARC-HBR criteria in patients undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT) for femoropopliteal arterial lesions has not been thoroughly investigated. The study population comprised 165 patients undergoing initial EVT for femoropopliteal lesions between June 2018 and June 2020. They were divided into two groups according to the ARC-HBR criteria. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 2 years of EVT. The 165 patients were divided into two groups: 125 (75.8%) patients at HBR (HBR group) and 40 (24.2%) patients at no HBR (non-HBR group). The cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly higher in the HBR group than in the non-HBR group (40.6% vs. 0%, log-rank p < 0.001). The HBR group had a significantly higher risk of all-cause death, major bleeding, and TLR than the non-HBR group (25.2% vs. 0%, log-rank p = 0.004, 13.9% vs. 0%, log-rank p = 0.047, 16.8% vs. 0%, log-rank p = 0.035). Most patients with peripheral artery disease were classified as HBR patients, and HBR patients were at higher risk of death, major bleeding, and TLR than non-HBR patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.