ReviewMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024
Advancements in Vascular Closure Devices for Effective Hemostasis in Femoral Artery Interventions.
Review in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vascular closure devices in electrophysiology procedures: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Bioorthogonally Cross-Linked Injectable PEG Hydrogel with Robust Hemostatic and Antibacterial Properties.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Early experience with CELT ACD vascular access closure device for neurointerventional procedures.The journal of vascular access · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With medical technology development, endovascular intervention has been widely used in clinical practice, and the establishment of surgical access through the femoral artery, where most vascular interventions are performed, is a common method. Postoperative hemostasis at the femoral artery puncture site is a key part of interventional procedures and is particularly important to ensure the safety and effectiveness of hemostasis. Some patients undergoing interventional therapy also use anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs preoperatively and undergo systemic heparin session intraoperatively, which leads to abnormal coagulation, thus increasing the difficulty of hemostasis at the puncture point postoperatively. Certain patients with specific conditions, such as combined vascular calcification, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and renal impairment, present more challenging cases for postoperative puncture point hemostasis. Femoral artery puncture site hemostasis methods include manual compression, arterial compression devices, and vascular closure devices, which are a kind of equipment that helps interventional doctors stop bleeding quickly at the femoral artery puncture site. From the 1990s to the present, vascular occluders with many different concepts and mechanisms have emerged. Based on different hemostatic principles and materials, the mechanisms and principles of action are varied and include sealant occlusion, collagen patch embolization, polyester suture closure, absorbable polyethanol embolic agents, nickel-titanium alloy clips, polydiethanol sealant embolization, and suture bioabsorbable patches. Many studies have compared the hemostatic effect of vascular closure devices with those of manual compression. In this article, we review the hemostatic effects of the 2 modalities and the advances in the use of vascular closure devices in vascular intervention.
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.