Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39225792›Full record

GuidelineEuropean radiology2025

ESR Essentials: arterial vascular access and closure devices-practice recommendations by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe.

Stavros Spiliopoulos, Spyridon Prountzos, Stavros Grigoriadis, Athanasios Diamantopoulos, Ioannis Paraskevopoulos

Abstract readPractice GuidelineReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Stavros Spiliopoulos2nd Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, "ATTIKON" University General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. stavspiliop@med.uoa.gr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1860-0568
Spyridon Prountzos2nd Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, "ATTIKON" University General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Stavros Grigoriadis2nd Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, "ATTIKON" University General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Athanasios DiamantopoulosDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ioannis ParaskevopoulosDepartment of Clinical Radiology and Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vascular access is the initial, very important, step of endovascular procedures. Various access sites include the common femoral artery, brachial artery, radial artery, popliteal artery, and distal tibial vessels (pedal arteries). Successful arterial access requires advanced knowledge of anatomy, as well as proper training and experience. Today, vascular access should be obtained using real-time, ultrasound guidance to reduce access time, patient discomfort, and puncture-related complications including dissection, arteriovenous communication, and bleeding. Nevertheless, high-level evidence to support this recommendation in peripheral procedures is limited and level A data are mainly derived from randomized cardiac trials investigating only radial and femoral access. Vascular closure devices (VCDs) for femoral access can be broadly categorized as active closure devices, compression assist devices, and external/topical hemostasis devices. There is high-level evidence demonstrating that their use is related to less time for ambulation and increased patient satisfaction. However, available data failed to clearly demonstrate a benefit in complications compared to standard manual compression in peripheral endovascular arterial procedures, and thrombotic and infectious complications reported following VCD use remain an issue. Heterogeneity noted in the literature, caused by the vast variety of devices, access sites, sheath sizes, clinical scenarios, and procedures, poses difficulties in data analysis and future study design. As a result, an individualized VCD use is currently suggested for ≥ 5 Fr femoral artery access not only to reduce time to hemostasis and ambulation and to improve patient comfort, but also to reduce bleeding complications in cases of femoral access with increased bleeding risk, deranged coagulation, and large-bore access, though a high level of evidence to support this later recommendation is limited. KEY POINTS: US guidance is strongly recommended for femoral access and is mandatory to obtain more challenging access. The use of VCDs for femoral hemostasis is generally safe, effective, and currently supported by level I evidence. Proper training and correct VCD choice, based on the patient's individual characteristics, are imperative to optimize outcomes.

Indexed as

Catheterization, PeripheralEndovascular ProceduresHemostatic TechniquesVascular Closure DevicesEuropeFemoral ArteryHemorrhageHumansSocieties, MedicalInterventional radiologyPercutaneous endovascular treatment (vascular access)Peripheral arterial proceduresUltrasound guidanceVascular closure devices

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.