Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41051424›Full record

ReviewHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2026

[Vascular closure following electrophysiological procedures-a practical guide].

Christian-Hendrik Heeger, Henning Rolfes

Abstract readReviewEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Christian-Hendrik HeegerDepartment für Rhythmologie, Kardiologie und internistische Intensivmedizin, Asklepios Klinik Hamburg Altona, Paul-Ehrlich-Straße 1, 22763, Hamburg, Deutschland. christian.h.heeger@gmail.com.
Henning RolfesDepartment für Rhythmologie, Kardiologie und internistische Intensivmedizin, Asklepios Klinik Hamburg Altona, Paul-Ehrlich-Straße 1, 22763, Hamburg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The proposed introduction of outpatient electrophysiological procedures challenges physicians with the task of safely discharging patients after only a few hours of monitoring. Despite the widely established use of ultrasound-guided vascular access in many centers, access-site complications remain the most common complications associated with electrophysiological interventions. Modern vascular closure devices have made postprocedural care safer and more comfortable. Nevertheless, the traditional Z‑suture continues to play an important role, particularly in cases of individual anatomical challenges or as a fallback option in the event of device failure. The choice of the closure method should always be made on an individual basis, taking into account vascular access, patient safety, available resources, and physician expertise. This review article focuses on techniques and systems for the periprocedural management of vascular access in electrophysiology.

Indexed as

Electrophysiologic Techniques, CardiacPractice Guidelines as TopicVascular Closure DevicesHumansAmbulatory surgerical proceduresCatheter ablationElectrophysiologyRhythmologyVascular closure

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.