You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 92, Issue 2
  • Randomised comparison of manual compression repair versus ultrasound guided compression repair of postcatheterisation femoral pseudoaneurysms

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Scientific letters
Randomised comparison of manual compression repair versus ultrasound guided compression repair of postcatheterisation femoral pseudoaneurysms
  1. M Paschalidis1,
  2. W Theiss1,
  3. K Kölling2,
  4. R Busch3,
  5. A Schömig1,*
  1. 11. Medizinische Klinik der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany
  2. 2Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Munich, Germany
  3. 3Institut für Medizinische Statistik und Epidemiologie der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany
  1. Correspondence to:
    Professor Wolfram Theiss
    1. Medizinische Klinik der Technischen Universität München, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Ismaningerstrasse 22, 81675 Munich, Germany; theiss{at}med1.med.tu-muenchen.de

https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2004.053793

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Direct manual compression without concurrent technical surveillance may be a simple alternative to both ultrasound guided compression repair (UGCR) and ultrasound guided thrombin injection. Since this simple method of manual compression repair (MCR) proved to be effective in a preliminary study, we conducted a prospective, randomised trial comparing MCR versus UGCR.1

    PATIENTS AND METHODS

    From September 1997 to January 2000 Duplex ultrasonography was performed in all patients with clinically suspected disease in the groin after cardiac and peripheral arterial catheterisation.

    Patients were considered for the study when none of the following exclusion criteria existed: (1) imminent rupture of the lesion; (2) coexisting massive haematoma; (3) skin necrosis; (4) active infection in the groin; or (5) lower limb ischaemia. After providing informed consent they were randomly assigned to either UGCR or MCR.

    A group of six investigators performed sonography, UGCR, and MCR. UGCR was carried out as previously published for a maximum of 60 minutes.2,3 MCR was performed as for primary haemostasis after arterial catheterisation. Pressure was mainly directed to the area of maximum pulsation and was gradually increased until the pathological pulsation of the haematoma or the femoral thrill disappeared. Pressure was maintained until the pathological pulsation of …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • ↵* Also Deutsches Herzzentrum München