ArticleCVIR endovascular2026
Usefulness of ultrasonography to confirm hemostasis after femoral artery access in endovascular therapy.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFemoral artery access is commonly used in endovascular therapy (EVT) for peripheral artery disease (PAD), but puncture site complications remain a significant concern. Although manual compression is widely applied, assessment of hemostasis is often subjective. Routine ultrasonographic confirmation of hemostasis may provide a more objective evaluation, but its clinical impact has not been fully clarified. The purpose of this study is to investigate the association between ultrasonography-confirmed hemostasis and femoral artery access site complications following EVT for PAD. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study analysed 1643 femoral artery access sites in patients undergoing EVT for PAD between January 2018 and August 2025. Until December 2019, hemostasis was assessed based on clinical judgement alone, whereas from January 2020 onward, routine ultrasonographic confirmation of hemostasis was implemented as an institutional protocol. Access sites were categorized into an ultrasonography group (n = 1185) and a non-ultrasonography group (n = 458). A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis yielded 429 matched access sites in each group. The primary endpoint was access site bleeding complications, defined as persistent or recurrent bleeding, hematoma formation, or pseudoaneurysm development during or after compression with a pressure bandage.
resultsIn the matched cohort, ultrasonography-confirmed hemostasis was associated with a significantly lower incidence of bleeding complications when 6 Fr sheaths were used (3.5% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.022). The incidence of pseudoaneurysm formation was also lower in the ultrasonography group with 6 Fr sheaths (0.95% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.029). No significant differences in bleeding complications were observed between groups when 5 Fr or smaller were used. Within the ultrasonography group, bleeding complication rates did not differ between antegrade and retrograde femoral access approaches.
conclusionsRoutine ultrasonographic confirmation of femoral artery hemostasis was associated with fewer access site bleeding complications after EVT for PAD, particularly when larger (6 Fr) sheaths were used. Ultrasonographic evaluation may represent a simple and effective strategy to enhance procedural safety in femoral artery EVT.
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.