These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

465 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25312663)

  • 1. [Comparison of radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians with acute coronary syndrome].
    Gao L; Liu Y; Xue Q; Tian J; Wang Y
    Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2014 Jul; 94(26):2025-9. PubMed ID: 25312663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes: re-evaluation of the current body of evidence.
    Lee MS; Wolfe M; Stone GW
    JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2013 Nov; 6(11):1149-52. PubMed ID: 24262614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians.
    Jaffe R; Hong T; Sharieff W; Chisholm RJ; Kutryk MJ; Charron T; Cheema AN
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2007 May; 69(6):815-20. PubMed ID: 17191214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Impact of Access Site on Bleeding and Ischemic Events in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated With Prasugrel: The ACCOAST Access Substudy.
    Porto I; Bolognese L; Dudek D; Goldstein P; Hamm C; Tanguay JF; Ten Berg J; Widimský P; Le Gall N; Zagar AJ; LeNarz LA; Miller D; Montalescot G;
    JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2016 May; 9(9):897-907. PubMed ID: 27151605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Radial vs Femoral Approach in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Meta- Analysis of Randomized Trials.
    Nardin M; Verdoia M; Barbieri L; Schaffer A; Suryapranata H; De Luca G
    Curr Vasc Pharmacol; 2017; 16(1):79-92. PubMed ID: 28490313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial.
    Bernat I; Horak D; Stasek J; Mates M; Pesek J; Ostadal P; Hrabos V; Dusek J; Koza J; Sembera Z; Brtko M; Aschermann O; Smid M; Polansky P; Al Mawiri A; Vojacek J; Bis J; Costerousse O; Bertrand OF; Rokyta R
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2014 Mar; 63(10):964-72. PubMed ID: 24211309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography/Intervention in Women With Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the RIVAL Trial (Radial Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention).
    Pandie S; Mehta SR; Cantor WJ; Cheema AN; Gao P; Madan M; Niemela K; Rao SV; Schwalm JD; Valentin V; Velianou JL; Jolly SS
    JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2015 Apr; 8(4):505-12. PubMed ID: 25907080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial.
    Jolly SS; Yusuf S; Cairns J; Niemelä K; Xavier D; Widimsky P; Budaj A; Niemelä M; Valentin V; Lewis BS; Avezum A; Steg PG; Rao SV; Gao P; Afzal R; Joyner CD; Chrolavicius S; Mehta SR;
    Lancet; 2011 Apr; 377(9775):1409-20. PubMed ID: 21470671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
    Karrowni W; Vyas A; Giacomino B; Schweizer M; Blevins A; Girotra S; Horwitz PA
    JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2013 Aug; 6(8):814-23. PubMed ID: 23968700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Relationship Between Arterial Access and Outcomes in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With a Pharmacoinvasive Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategy: Insights From the STrategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial Infarction (STREAM) Study.
    Shavadia J; Welsh R; Gershlick A; Zheng Y; Huber K; Halvorsen S; Steg PG; Van de Werf F; Armstrong PW
    J Am Heart Assoc; 2016 Jun; 5(6):. PubMed ID: 28525886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison between radial and femoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients aged 80 years or older.
    Hu F; Yang Y; Qiao S; Xu B; Liu H; Wu Y; Chen J; You S; Chen J; Gao R
    J Interv Cardiol; 2012 Oct; 25(5):513-7. PubMed ID: 22575015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of radial versus femoral artery access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation.
    Mehta SR; Jolly SS; Cairns J; Niemela K; Rao SV; Cheema AN; Steg PG; Cantor WJ; Džavík V; Budaj A; Rokoss M; Valentin V; Gao P; Yusuf S;
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2012 Dec; 60(24):2490-9. PubMed ID: 23103036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Association of radial versus femoral access with contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
    Kolte D; Spence N; Puthawala M; Hyder O; Tuohy CP; Davidson CB; Sheldon MW; Laskey WK; Abbott JD
    Cardiovasc Revasc Med; 2016 Dec; 17(8):546-551. PubMed ID: 27566903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Safety of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via the radial versus femoral route in patients on uninterrupted oral anticoagulation with warfarin.
    Baker NC; O'Connell EW; Htun WW; Sun H; Green SM; Skelding KA; Blankenship JC; Scott TD; Berger PB
    Am Heart J; 2014 Oct; 168(4):537-44. PubMed ID: 25262264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Use and outcome of radial versus femoral approach for primary PCI in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction without cardiogenic shock: results from the ALKK PCI registry.
    Bauer T; Hochadel M; Brachmann J; Schächinger V; Boekstegers P; Zrenner B; Zahn R; Zeymer U;
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2015 Oct; 86 Suppl 1():S8-14. PubMed ID: 25945803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Transradial vs femoral percutaneous coronary intervention for left main disease in octogenarians.
    Bertrand OF; Bagur R; Costerousse O; Rodés-Cabau J
    Indian Heart J; 2010; 62(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 21275300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Trans-radial approach versus trans-femoral approach in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
    Senguttuvan NB; Reddy PMK; Shankar P; Abdulkader RS; Yallanki HP; Kumar A; Majmundar M; Ramalingam V; Rajendran R; Bhoopalan K; Kaliyamoorthy D; T R M; Kalra A; Jayaraj R; Ramakrishnan S; Daggubati R; Thanikachalam S; Seth A; Bahl VK
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(4):e0266709. PubMed ID: 35483028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of a vascular closure device versus the radial approach to reduce access site complications in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: The angio-seal versus the radial approach in acute coronary syndrome trial.
    Andrade PB; Mattos LA; Rinaldi FS; Bienert IC; Barbosa RA; Labrunie A; Tebet M; Esteves V; Abizaid A; Sousa AR
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2017 May; 89(6):976-982. PubMed ID: 27514319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Percutaneous coronary intervention via the radial artery: comparison of procedural success in emergency versus non-emergency cases.
    Murphy JC; Kozor R; Figtree GA; Ward MR; Bhindi R
    Cardiovasc Revasc Med; 2012; 13(5):277-80. PubMed ID: 22980433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Procedural volume and outcomes with radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention.
    Jolly SS; Cairns J; Yusuf S; Niemela K; Steg PG; Worthley M; Ferrari E; Cantor WJ; Fung A; Valettas N; Rokoss M; Olivecrona GK; Widimsky P; Cheema AN; Gao P; Mehta SR;
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2014 Mar; 63(10):954-63. PubMed ID: 24269362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.