View clinical trials related to Arterial Occlusion.
Filter by:The purpose of this clinical study is to compare how well two different devices achieve hemostasis in patients undergoing a transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Both devices are approved by the FDA for this use, and have already been used by clinicians on patients undergoing transfemoral procedures. It is believed that the use of both devices in combination compared to the Perclose alone will shorten the time that it takes to 'seal' the artery, resulting in a shorter period of time that manual pressure will be held, shorter procedure time and less complications after the procedure.
The purpose of the LOW-RAO study is to determine the most effective treatment for radial artery occlusion (RAO) after transradial coronary catheterization (both angiography and PCI). This is a prospective, single-center, randomized controlled, open-label study that will randomize patients with RAO into two groups, one receiving anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) and the other receiving no anticoagulation. RAO will be detected by radial artery ultrasound up to 24 hours after the procedure. Study objectives: 1. Primary objective: a. To evaluate the effect of treatment with LMWH, in patients (both symptomatic and asymptomatic) with RAO after a coronary catheterization procedure (both angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention-PCI), in improving patency rates of the radial artery at 1 month after the procedure, compared with no-LMWH treatment. 2. Secondary objectives: 1. To compare RAO as defined by different methods (pulse palpation, modified Allen's test, reverse Barbeau test, radial artery ultrasound). 2. To compare local access site and systemic complications (bleeding events, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula) at 1 month after the procedure in the LMWH and no-LMWH groups. 3. To evaluate RAO incidence in coronary angiography and PCI groups. 4. To determine risk factors for RAO in coronary catheterization procedures.
The purpose of this clinical study is to compare how well two different devices for achieving hemostasis perform in patients undergoing transradial procedures. Both devices are approved by the FDA for this use, and have already been used by clinicians on patients undergoing transradial procedures. It is believed that the use of both devices in combination compared to the hemostasis band (TR band) alone will shorten the time that it takes to 'seal' the artery, resulting in a shorter period of time that you would need to wear the hemostasis band.
To study the feasibility and usefulness of multimodal MR compared to multimodal CT to select patients with acute ischemic stroke and favorable clinical outcome after mechanical thrombectomy. The specific objectives are to compare (1) the door-picture time and door-groin puncture time, (2) the rate of patients with acute stroke selected for endovascular treatment and (3) the safety and clinical response after thrombectomy between the two groups selected according to the imaging modality. Methodology: Single-center, randomized 1:1 and stratified by age and NIHSS study of consecutive patients with suspected acute ischemic stroke. Occlusion site, ischemic volume (core) and perfusion volume will be studied by an automated perfusion system (RAPID software) in both neuroimaging groups. Mechanical thrombectomy criteria will be basically based on the presence of a Large Vessel Occlusion (LVO) and a volume of core lower than 70cc in the Cerebral Blood Flow (CBF) or Diffusion Weighted Image (DWI) sequences. Modified Rankin scale at 90 days and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage and mortality will be considered as variables of response.
The primary objectives of this study are to evaluate the performance of StatSeal Advanced used in conjunction with the TR Band (SSA) as compared to the TR Band without SSA (TRB) relative to: the incidence of peri-procedural radial artery occlusion (RAO) at discharge or 24 hours, whichever occurs first, and the Time to Hemostasis (TTH).