↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Combined Radial-Pedal Access Strategy and Radial-Pedal Rendezvous in the Revascularization of Complex Total Occlusions of the Superficial Femoral Artery (the “No Femoral Access” Strategy)
Published in
Journal of Endovascular Therapy, February 2016
DOI 10.1177/1526602816629609
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To describe the combined use of radial-pedal access for recanalization of complex superficial femoral artery (SFA) occlusions unsuitable for transfemoral recanalization. Patients are selected for this strategy if they have a long (≥10 cm) SFA occlusion with unfavorable aortoiliac anatomy, an absent ostial stump, or severely diseased and calcified distal reconstitution. Left radial artery and distal anterior or posterior tibial artery are accessed with 6-F and 4-F sheaths, respectively. The SFA lesion is crossed retrogradely with a 0.035-inch wire system. If retrograde crossing is not immediately successful, transradial subintimal tracking and radial-pedal subintimal rendezvous are used to allow retrograde reentry. Fifteen patients (mean age 62±5 years; 11 men) have been treated in this fashion, and frequently stented, through the tibiopedal access. Seven patients required radial-pedal rendezvous to facilitate retrograde reentry. Two patients underwent transradial iliac stenting during the same session, and 1 patient underwent transradial kissing angioplasty of the profunda. No major complication occurred in any patient. After the procedure, the pulse across the accessed tibial artery was palpable in all patients. In patients with long and complex SFA occlusion unsuitable for transfemoral recanalization, a radial-pedal strategy can overcome revascularization obstacles.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Unknown 10 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2016.
All research outputs
#24,515,657
of 27,250,299 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Endovascular Therapy
#1,095
of 1,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#355,186
of 412,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Endovascular Therapy
#18
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,250,299 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,233 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 412,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.