To plug or not to plug 英文参考文献.docVIP

Available online /content/8/2/87 Commentary To plug or not to plug? Joseph Varon1 and Robert E Fromm, Jr2 1Professor, The University of Texas Health Science Center, St Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA 2Associate Professor, Baylor College of Medicine, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA Correspondence: Joseph Varon, Joseph.Varon@ Published online: 24 February 2004 Critical Care 2004, 8:87-88 (DOI 10.1186/cc2829) This article is online at /content/8/2/87 ? 2004 BioMed Central Ltd (Print ISSN 1364-8535; Online ISSN 1466-609X) Abstract Coronary artery disease remains a common problem in industrialized countries. Percutaneous coronary interventions are usually performed utilizing the femoral approach. Arterial puncture-closing devices have been developed in hope to avoid manual compression and shortening the period of rest. In a recent meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association these devices have shown only marginal benefits over manual compression. Further, well designed studies are necessary to document the comparative effects of these devices versus manual compression. Keywords arterial puncture, coronary artery disease, hemostasis, percutaneous coronary angioplasty Coronary artery disease is a common malady in Western civilizations [1]. Coronary interventions have increased in frequency, improving the quality of life for many coronary artery disease patients. In fact, it is estimated that more than one million procedures occur each year [2]. Although complications in the coronary artery can be devastating, peripheral complications are also of concern. These procedures involve arterial puncture with a relatively large bore cannula, and hematoma formation, pseudoaneurysms and other local complications are not infrequent [3,4]. met the authors’ selection criteria. The reviewers then abstracted the data, and random effects models were constructed to pool the data for meta-ana