ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Application and Outcomes of Minimal-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Radiation in Peripheral Endovascular Intervention (KAR Endovascular Study).
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripheral endovascular intervention (PEVI) is routinely performed using standard-dose radiation (SDR), which is associated with elevated levels of radiation. No study has evaluated the outcomes of minimal-dose radiation (MDR) in PEVI.
methodsWe performed a prospective observational study of 184 patients (65 ± 12 years) at an academic medical center from January 2019 to March 2020 (mean follow-up of 3.9 ± 3.6 months) and compared the outcomes of MDR (n = 24, 13.0%) and SDR (n = 160, 87.0%) in PEVI. Primary endpoints included air kerma, dose area product (DAP), fluoroscopy time, and contrast use. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, acute myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, stroke, repeat revascularization, vessel dissection/perforation, major adverse limb event, access site complications, and composite of complications.
resultsFor MDR (68 ± 10 years, mean follow-up of 4.3 ± 5.2 months), the primary endpoints were significantly less than SDR (65 ± 12 years, mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 3.2 months;
conclusionsPEVI using MDR was safe and efficacious. MDR showed a significant decrement in radiation parameters and fluoroscopy time. Therefore, MDR can serve as an effective alternative for PEVI in acute or critical limb ischemia.
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.