SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2017 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1

Usefulness and safety of the “God’s Hand” pneumatic compression device for hemostasis in femoral catheterization

Sungwon KİM
Jae Hyun KWON
Yoon Hee HAN
Jeung Sook KİM
Pages
49–54
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
🔖

Cite This Article

KİM, S., KWON, J. H., HAN, Y. H., KİM, J. S. (2017). Usefulness and safety of the “God’s Hand” pneumatic compression device for hemostasis in femoral catheterization. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1, 49–54. https://ajindex.com/articles/189638

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Hoffer EK, Bloch RD. Percutaneous arterial closure devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003
  2. 865–885. [CrossRef] 2. Semler HJ. Transfemoral catheterization: mechanical versus manual control of bleeding. Radiology 1985
  3. 234–235. [CrossRef] 3. Pracyk JB, Wall TC, Longabaugh JP, et al. A randomized trial of vascular hemostasis techniques to reduce femoral vascular complications after coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 1998
  4. 970–976. [CrossRef] 4. Hong K, Liapi E, Georgiades CS, Geschwind JF. Case-controlled comparison of a percutaneous collagen arteriotomy closure device versus manual compression after liver chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005
  5. 339–345. [CrossRef] 5. Madigan JB, Ratnam LA, Belli AM. Arterial closure devices. A review. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2007
  6. 607–624. 6. Koreny M, Riedmuller E, Nikfardjam M, Siostrzonek P, Mullner M. Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2004
  7. 350– 357. [CrossRef] 7. Stiebellehner L, Nikfardjan M, Diem K, et al. Manual compression versus mechanical compression device (FemoStop) after diagnostic coronary angiography with/without intervention. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2002
  8. 847–852. 8. Kang M, Shin SW. A retrospective review on feasibility and safety of a new pneumatic compression device for femoral arteriotomy hemostasis. Korean J Radiol 2012
  9. 61–65. [CrossRef] 9. Omary RA, Bettmann MA, Cardella JF, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for the reporting and archiving of interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003
  10. S293–295. [CrossRef] 10. Baek S, Park SH, Won E, Park YR, Kim HJ. Propensity score matching: a conceptual review for radiology researchers. Korean J Radiol 2015
  11. 286–296. [CrossRef] 11. Sheth RA, Walker TG, Saad WE, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for vascular access and closure device use. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014
  12. 73–84. [CrossRef] 12. Bogart MA. Time to hemostasis: a comparison of manual versus mechanical compression of the femoral artery. Am J Crit Care 1995
  13. 149–156. 13. Walker SB, Cleary S, Higgins M. Comparison of the FemoStop device and manual pressure in reducing groin puncture site complications following coronary angioplasty and coronary stent placement. Int J Nurs Pract 2001
  14. 366–375. [CrossRef] 14. Kunert M, Gremmler B, Schleiting H, Ulbricht LJ. Use of FemoStop system for arterial puncture site closure after coronary