Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 12;16(3):e0248416. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248416

Ultrasound-guided puncture reduces bleeding-associated complications, regardless of calcified plaque, after endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal lesions, especially using the antegrade procedure: A single-center study

Kentaro Fukuda 1, Shinya Okazaki 2,*, Masayuki Shiozaki 1, Iwao Okai 2, Akihisa Nishino 3, Hiroshi Tamura 1, Kenji Inoue 1, Masataka Sumiyoshi 1, Hiroyuki Daida 2, Tohru Minamino 2
Editor: Xianwu Cheng4
PMCID: PMC7954350  PMID: 33711058

Abstract

Background

A common complication of endovascular treatment for femoropopliteal lesions is bleeding at the vascular access site. Although risk factors of bleeding-associated complications at the approach site have been reported, the results have been inconclusive. Hence, this study aimed to assess the predictors of bleeding-associated complications at the approach site in patients undergoing endovascular treatment for femoropopliteal lesions.

Methods

This retrospective, single-center, observational study included consecutive patients who underwent endovascular treatment (n = 366, 75% male, 72.4±9.9 year) for peripheral arterial disease with claudication and critical limb ischemia in our hospital from January 2010 to December 2017. We divided the patients into bleeding and non-bleeding groups, depending on whether bleeding-associated complications occurred at the approach site. Bleeding-associated complications were defined according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria types 2, 3, and 5.

Results

Altogether, 366 endovascular treatment procedures and 404 arterial accesses were performed for femoropopliteal lesions in 335 peripheral arterial disease patients with claudication and 69 critical limb ischemia patients. We recorded 35 postprocedural bleeding-associated complications at the approach site (9%), all of which were hematomas. The predictors of increased bleeding-associated complications were age ≥ 80 years (bleeding vs. non-bleeding group, 43% vs. 25%, p<0.05) and antegrade cannulation of the common femoral artery (48% vs. 69%, p<0.05). Ultrasound-guided puncture reduced bleeding-associated complications (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.004–0.21; p<0.05). In contrast, there was no significant difference in puncture site calcification between the groups (bleeding vs. non-bleeding groups, 29% vs. 21%, p = 0.29).

Conclusion

Ultrasound-guided puncture is associated with a decrease in bleeding-associated complications at the approach site, regardless of the presence of calcified plaque. It is particularly effective and should be more actively used in patients aged ≥80 years and for antegrade cannulation of the common femoral artery.

Introduction

Endovascular treatment (EVT) for femoropopliteal (FP) lesions is currently one of the most rapidly expanding fields of medicine. According to the treatment recommendations for FP lesions in 2010 upon this study’s initiation, EVT was only recommended for single stenosis of <3 cm in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) with claudication, and surgical intervention was the first choice for patients with other lesions and critical limb ischemia (CLI) [1]. In the past decade, new EVT-related devices and technologies have been introduced sequentially, and improvements in treatment results have been reported [2–7]. Regarding treatment recommendations for FP lesions in 2017 upon this study’s completion, EVT was the first choice for stenoses and occlusions of <25 cm in patients with claudication and CLI [8]. With this rapid development of EVT, treating more severe and advanced lesions became possible. In the future, EVT is expected to be developed further and treat more complicated cases than was previously possible. Conversely, complications have become more problematic than previously reported because high-risk patients are currently being targeted, and the reduction in complications is important.

One of the most common complications of EVT is bleeding complications at the vascular access site, with an incidence of 1–10% [9–11]. Identified risk factors include increasing age, the female sex, anticoagulant use, puncture without ultrasonographic guidance, a large sheath size, and manual compression [12–18]. Although various studies have reported on the risk factors, the results are inconclusive. Additionally, in previous studies showing that ultrasound-guided puncture is useful, many of the cases are of retrograde approaches. In modern EVT, the antegrade approach is often required [19], and the purpose was to retroactively confirm whether ultrasound guidance is effective in the recent EVT situation. Hence, this study aimed to examine the risk factors for bleeding complications in EVT of FP lesions using real clinical data from our institution.

Materials and methods

Study design and patients

This was a retrospective, single-center study. Altogether, 366 consecutive patients who underwent EVT for FP lesions at our institution from January 2010 to December 2017 were enrolled in this study. We divided the patients into the bleeding group (BG) for those with bleeding-associated complications and the non-bleeding group (NBG) for those without bleeding-associated complications, and examined the risk factors related to the complications. The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1971, as revised in 1982. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We included all patients who underwent EVT for PAD with claudication and CLI. Patients who underwent EVT performed through antegrade or retrograde common femoral artery (CFA), and popliteal artery or distal below-the-knee artery accesses were included, whereas those who underwent EVT using other accesses, such as the radial or brachial artery, were excluded.

Endpoints

We reviewed patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and operative details. The main outcome measure of bleeding-associated complications was defined as bleeding at the puncture site that required medical intervention (requiring compression, an extension of the bed rest period, transfusion, and operation for hemostasis), classified as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria types 2, 3, and 5 [20].

Study participants and clinical assessment

PAD with claudication was diagnosed based on clinical symptoms of intermittent claudication and angiographic findings, which showed >75% stenosis and/or a translational pressure gradient (>20 mmHg) and was classified according to the Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC). Meanwhile, CLI was diagnosed based on clinical symptoms of ischemic pain at rest or the presence of tissue loss, such as in PAD-related non-healing ulcers or gangrene. Calcification at the puncture site was defined as a clear confirmation of calcification on a fluoroscopic image.

Endovascular intervention

Arterial puncture procedures were performed only by certified doctors. The needle aimed at the distal third of the femoral head, and only the anterior wall of the artery was punctured. Patients with normal renal function underwent angiography with iopamidol-370. Those with creatinine level >1.5 mg/dL underwent angiography with carbon dioxide. Heparin (5000 IU) was used in all patients to induce systemic anticoagulation. When the wire passed the culprit lesion, pre-dilation with either a plain balloon or scoring balloon angioplasty was performed. The balloon size was determined by the operator and was based on the angiographic appearance of the vessel. FP lesions were first treated with balloon angioplasty at a nominal pressure for 5 min, and a nitinol stent was introduced when major dissection with contrast delay occurred. In FP lesions, EVT success was defined as residual lesions <50%, without the occurrence of flow-limiting dissection. Protamine was used unless there was a known contraindication such as an allergy. If the puncture position did not involve the bifurcation, hemostasis was attempted using vascular closure devices. In either case, manual compression was performed for 15 min or more by a clinical fellow until hemostasis was achieved, and finally, mechanical compression was added using a tourniquet band. The patient was rested on a bed for 6 h or more after the operation, and walking was permitted after examination of the puncture site the next day.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are presented as mean±SD or median (interquartile range); categorical variables are presented as numbers and percentages. P-values <0.05 are considered statistically significant. Categorical variables are described as numbers and proportions and were analyzed using the chi-square test, whereas continuous variables were analyzed using the Student’s t-test. Multivariate analysis was performed using variables that were reportedly associated with access site complications. A stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the variables. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and JMP version 9.0.0. (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Altogether, 374 EVT procedures were performed from January 2010 to December 2017. The patients’ ages ranged from 43 to 95 years (mean: 72.4±9.9 years). Among them, 303 were men (75%), 108 were ≥80 years (27%), 335 had PAD with claudication (83%), 69 had CLI (17%), 355 had hypertension (88%), 308 had dyslipidemia (76%), 250 had diabetes mellitus (62%), and 114 had undergone hemodialysis (28%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Patients’ characteristics.

Variables Total Bleeding group Non-bleeding group p-value
n = 404 n = 35 n = 369
Male 303 (75) 26 (74) 277 (75) 0.92
Age, years 72.4±9.9 74.7±9.0 72.2±9.9
    ≥80 years 108 (27) 15 (43) 93 (25) <0.05
Diagnosis 0.35
    PAD 335 (83) 31 (89) 304 (82)
    CLI 69 (17) 4 (11) 65 (18)
Risk factor
    Hypertension 355 (88) 28 (80) 327 (89) 0.14
    Dyslipidemia 308 (76) 28 (80) 280 (76) 0.58
    Diabetes mellitus 250 (62) 18 (51) 232 (63) 0.18
    Hemodialysis 114 (28) 5 (14) 109 (30) 0.06
Medication
    SAPT 16 (4) 3 (9) 13 (4) 0.14
    DAPT 335 (83) 27 (77) 308 (83) 0.34
    SAPT+OAC 18 (4) 1 (3) 17 (5) 0.63
    DAPT+OAC 31 (8) 3 (9) 28 (8) 0.83
    Statin 222 (55) 17 (49) 205 (56) 0.43
Lesion characteristics
    TASC classification
    A/B 163 (40) 12 (46) 151 (41) 0.58
    C/D 237 (59) 19 (54) 218 (59)
    CTO 156 (39) 18 (51) 138 (37) 0.10
Puncture site calcification 87 (22) 10 (29) 77 (21) 0.29

Abbreviations: CLI, critical limb ischemia; CTO, chronic total occlusion; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; OAC, oral anticoagulant therapy; PAD, peripheral arterial disease; SAPT, single antiplatelet therapy; TASC, Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus.

aContinuous data are presented as mean±standard deviation; categorical data are given as the count (percentage).

Meanwhile, 412 arterial accesses from the CFA, popliteal artery, distal below-the-knee arteries, brachial artery, and radial artery were performed. We excluded seven arterial accesses from the brachial artery and one arterial access from the radial artery. Hence, 366 EVT and 404 arterial access procedures were included in this study. There were 35 bleeding-associated complications (9%), all of which were hematomas. Of the 35 patients with bleeding-associated complications, all required manual re-compression and extension of the bed rest period, and 15 patients were treated with blood transfusions and treated without sequelae. No cases required operation for hemostasis. The incidence of bleeding-associated complications was significantly high among patients aged ≥80 years (BG vs. NBG, 43% vs. 25%, p<0.05). There were no significant differences in the other contributing factors between the groups. The total number of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) prescriptions was 335 (83%); however, the combination of oral antiplatelet drugs did not differ between the groups (BG vs. NBG, single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT): 9% vs. 4%, p = 0.14; DAPT: 77% vs. 83%, p = 0.34; SAPT + oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC): 3% vs. 5%, p = 0.63; DAPT + OAC: 9% vs. 8%, p = 0.83). There was no significant difference in the TASC classification (BG vs. NBG, TASC A and B: 46% vs. 41%, p = 0.58; TASC C and D: 54% vs. 59%, p = 0.58), chronic total occlusion (BG vs. NBG, 51% vs. 37%, p = 0.58), and puncture site calcification (BG vs. NBG, 29% vs. 21%, p = 0.29) between the groups (Table 1).

The most common arterial access site was the CFA in 89% (antegrade cannulation; n = 194 [48%], retrograde cannulation; n = 166 [41%]); the popliteal artery was selected in 43 (11%), and a distal below-the-knee artery was used in only one (0%). The used sheath size was 83% for ≥6 Fr and 17% for a sheath with <6 Fr or only a microcatheter. The ultrasound-guided puncture was performed in 168 patients (42%), and in the remaining patients, the fluoroscopy-guided or pulsation-guided puncture was performed. The treatment procedure was stent implantation (60%) and plain-old balloon angioplasty (35%) and did not involve a drug-eluting balloon or stent. For hemostasis, protamine was used in 61%, and vascular closure devices (Angio-Seal STS-Plus™ [St. Jude Medical, Minnesota, USA]/Exoseal™ [Cordis Corporation, Miami Lakes, FL, USA]) were used in 42% of the patients. The incidence of bleeding-associated complications was significantly higher with antegrade cannulation than with retrograde cannulation of the CFA (BG vs. NBG, 48% vs. 69%, p<0.05) and in the absence of ultrasound-guided puncture (3% vs. 45%, p<0.05). The incidence of bleeding-associated complications with ultrasound-guided puncture was 1% (1/168), and the incidence without ultrasound-guided puncture was 14.4% (34/236). In this study, 236 (58%) of the total 404 cases did not undergo ultrasound-guided puncture. If ultrasound-guided puncture was performed in all cases, the incidence of complications is expected to decrease from the actual 35 cases to 2.4 cases. Contralateral cannulation of the CFA (26% vs. 43%, p = 0.09), cannulation from the popliteal artery (6% vs. 11%, p = 0.32), and distal below-the-knee arteries (BG 0% vs. 0%) were not significantly different between both groups. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to sheath size (p = 0.35), protamine use (69% vs. 61%, p = 0.36), or vascular closure devices (40% vs. 42%, p = 0.82) (Table 2).

Table 2. Procedural characteristicsa.

Variables Total Bleeding group Non-bleeding group p-value
n = 404 n = 35 n = 369
Procedural characteristics
Access site
Femoral catheterization 360 (89) 33 (94) 327 (89) 0.30
Antegrade cannulation 194 (48) 24 (69) 170 (46) <0.05
Retrograde cannulation 166 (41) 9 (26) 157 (43) 0.09
Popliteal catheterization 43 (11) 2 (6) 41 (11) 0.32
Distal puncture 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0)
    Sheath size 0.35
        ≥6 Fr 335 (83) 31 (89) 304 (82)
        6 Fr 322 30 292
        7 Fr 13 1 12
        <6 Fr 69 (17) 4 (11) 65 (18)
    Ultrasound-guided puncture 168 (42) 1 (3) 167 (45) <0.05
    Type of procedure
        Stent implantation 243 (60) 23 (66) 220 (60)
        Plain-old balloon angioplasty 143 (35) 7 (20) 136 (37)
        Drug-eluting balloon/stent 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
    Protamine 248 (61) 24 (69) 224 (61) 0.36
    Vascular closure device 169 (42) 14 (40) 155 (42) 0.82

aCategorical data are given as the count (percentage).

Multivariable analysis of bleeding-associated complications

Table 3 demonstrates variables, including age ≥80 years, that were independently associated with increased odds of bleeding-associated complications after EVT (relative risk (RR), 2.04; odds ratio (OR), 2.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.30–6.11; p<0.05). The use of real-time ultrasound-guided puncture was protective against bleeding-associated complications (RR, 0.04; OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.004–0.21; p<0.05).

Table 3. Multiple logistic-regression model with an odds ratio for bleeding-associated complications.

Multivariate analysis
Variable Odds ratio 95% CI p -value
Age ≥ 80 years 2.82 1.30–6.11 <0.05
Ultrasound-guided puncture 0.28 0.004–0.21 <0.05

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

Discussion

In this study, bleeding-associated complications after EVT occurred in 35 cases (9%). By re-verifying each factor, we found that bleeding events were very common among elderly people aged ≥80 years. Antegrade cannulation of the CFA and the lack of ultrasound-guided puncture were harmful as they caused bleeding events. Several previous studies have demonstrated that ischemia of the ipsilateral lower extremity is associated with hemostasis after femoral arterypuncture [18, 21]. Therefore, antegrade cannulation, which is a puncture of the lower limb on the lesion side, requires safe puncture without complications. Most of previous studies have demonstrated the usefulness of ultrasound-guided puncture; however, the rates of antegrade cannulation were as low as 0–16% [15, 16, 22, 23], which were not sufficient to evaluate the usefulness of ultrasound-guided puncture in antegrade cannulation. In this study, 48% of patients had antegrade cannulation, which indicates that ultrasound guidance is useful even in patients with a relatively high number of ipsilateral antegrade cannulations.

Previous studies have reported that patient predictors of bleeding-associated complications were increasing age and the female sex [12, 17]. Applegate RJ revealed that increasing age was associated with bleeding-associated complications (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.03, p<0.001) in 34,556 patients who underwent percutaneous cardiac catheterization via the CFA [24]. Especially in those aged ≥80 years, the risk of complication is higher [15]. In our patients, the age ≥ 80 years was a predictor of bleeding-associated complications.

Some studies reported procedural predictors of bleeding-associated complications, such as ultrasound-guided puncture [15, 16, 25], antegrade cannulation of CFA [26], sheath size [17, 27], and the use of vascular closure devices [11, 18, 28]. Although an ultrasound-guided puncture enables puncture at the calcified site to prevent bleeding-associated complications [22, 23], our study unexpectedly did not reveal an association between puncture site calcification and bleeding-associated complications. In contrast, routine ultrasound-guided punctures were protective against hematoma [15]. Hence, an ultrasound-guided puncture can not only avoid calcification but also enable puncture at an “optimal position,” thereby resulting in less plaque and potential hemostasis. There are several key points related to CFA puncture: 1) avoidance of the bifurcation site of the femoral artery, especially in cases involving a high takeoff deep femoral artery, 2) avoidance of the site where there is an overlap of the branch artery and the vein, 3) avoidance of a calcified lesion or plaque burden site in the CFA, and 4) identification of the position of the femoral head. Once the puncture position had been decided, the target vessel was punctured while checking the blood vessel and puncture needle simultaneously via ultrasonography. Bleeding-associated complications were reduced by appropriate puncturing based on information obtained by ultrasonography alone.

Antegrade cannulation of the CFA is also a predictor of bleeding-associated complications. Antegrade puncture is technically more difficult than a retrograde puncture. A high puncture (above the inguinal ligament) is associated with an increased incidence of groin hematoma and retroperitoneal bleeding [26]. Yeow et al. revealed that concomitant use of echo-guide puncture when performing antegrade cannulation of the CFA might reduce bleeding-associated complications [29]. In contrast, Siracuse et al. revealed that there were no significant differences between antegrade and retrograde cannulations in the overall rates of hematoma (3% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.21) or hematoma requiring intervention (0.4% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.75) in 45,816 patients undergoing EVT [19]. For antegrade cannulation, this is controversial.

The predictors of bleeding-associated complications such as the female sex, anticoagulant use, a large sheath size, and manual compression, identified in previous studies [12–18], were not significant in this study. The implication is that the increased risk due to these factors is offset by performing an “optimal puncture” with the ultrasound-guided puncture of the CFA.

This study had some limitations. First, it was a retrospective, single-center study. Second, the sample size was small. Third, multiple surgeons with different proficiencies were involved in the puncture and hemostasis; hence, the procedures may have been performed by surgeons with different experience levels.

Conclusions

EVT is expected to facilitate treatment for more complex and high-risk cases that could not be treated using previous techniques. Reducing complications is an important issue as high-risk patients are being increasingly targeted. Therefore, ultrasound-guided puncturing is recommended to reduce bleeding-associated complications, especially during antegrade cannulation of the CFA among elderly patients over the age of 80 years, regardless of calcified plaque at the puncture site.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, Bakal CW, Creager MA, Halperin JL, et al. ACC/AHA 2005 Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic). A collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery,* Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease) endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation. Circulation. 2006;113: e463–e654. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.174526 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dake MD, Ansel GM, Jaff MR, Ohki T, Saxon RR, Smouse HB, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting stents show superiority to balloon angioplasty and bare metal stents in femoropopliteal disease: twelve-month Zilver PTX randomized study results. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4: 495–504. 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.962324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dake MD, Ansel GM, Jaff MR, Ohki T, Saxon RR, Smouse HB, et al. Durable clinical effectiveness with paclitaxel-eluting stents in the femoropopliteal artery: 5-year results of the Zilver PTX randomized trial. Circulation. 2016;133: 1472–1483. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.016900 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Soga Y, Iida O, Hirano K, Yokoi H, Nanto S, Nobuyoshi M. Mid-term clinical outcome and predictors of vessel patency after femoropopliteal stenting with self-expandable nitinol stent. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52: 608–615. 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.03.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dominguez A III, Bahadorani J, Reeves R, Mahmud E, Patel M. Endovascular therapy for critical limb ischemia. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2015;13: 429–444. 10.1586/14779072.2015.1019472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Menard MT, Farber A. The BEST-CLI trial: a multidisciplinary effort to assess whether surgical or endovascular therapy is better for patients with critical limb ischemia. Semin Vasc Surg. 2014;27: 82–84. 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2015.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Popplewell MA, Davies H, Jarrett H, Bate G, Grant M, Patel S, et al. Bypass versus angioplasty in severe ischaemia of the leg—2 (BASIL-2) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17: 11. 10.1186/s13063-015-1114-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Aboyans V, Ricco JB, Bartelink MEL, Björck M, Brodmann M, Cohnert T, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery Document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries. Endorsed by the European Stroke Organization (ESO) The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur Heart J. 2018;39: 763–816. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx095 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Castillo-Sang M, Tsang AW, Almaroof B, Cireddu J, Sferra J, Zelenock GB, et al. Femoral artery complications after cardiac catheterization: a study of patient profile. Ann Vasc Surg. 2010;24: 328–335. 10.1016/j.avsg.2009.06.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Das R, Ahmed K, Athanasiou T, Morgan RA, Belli AM. Arterial closure devices versus manual compression for femoral haemostasis in interventional radiological procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;34: 723–738. 10.1007/s00270-010-9981-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Smilowitz NR, Kirtane AJ, Guiry M, Gray WA, Dolcimascolo P, Querijero M, et al. Practices and complications of vascular closure devices and manual compression in patients undergoing elective coronary procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110: 177–182. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.02.065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gewalt SM, Helde SM, Ibrahim T, Mayer K, Schmidt R, Bott-Flügel L, et al. Comparison of vascular closure devices versus manual compression after femoral artery puncture in women. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11: e006074. 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Minko P, Katoh M, Gräber S, Buecker A. Obesity: an independent risk factor for insufficient hemostasis using the AngioSeal vascular closure device after antegrade puncture. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35: 775–778. 10.1007/s00270-011-0230-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kerneis M, Gibson CM, Chi G, Mehran R, Al Khalfan F, Talib U, et al. Effect of procedure and coronary lesion characteristics on clinical outcomes among atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the PIONEER AF-PCI Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11: 626–634. 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kalish J, Eslami M, Gillespie D, Schermerhorn M, Rybin D, Doros G, et al. Routine use of echo guidance in femoral arterial access for peripheral vascular intervention decreases groin hematoma rates. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61: 1231–1238. 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Seto AH, Abu-Fadel MS, Sparling JM, Zacharias SJ, Daly TS, Harrison AT, et al. Real-time echo guidance facilitates femoral arterial access and reduces vascular complications: FAUST (Femoral Arterial Access With Echo Trial). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3: 751–758. 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.04.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sharma V, Wilson W, Smith W, McEntegart M, Oldroyd K, Sidik N, et al. Comparison of characteristics and complications in men versus women undergoing chronic total occlusion percutaneous intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119: 535–541. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dahal K, Rijal J, Shahukhal R, Sharma S, Watti H, Azrin M, et al. Comparison of manual compression and vascular hemostasis devices after coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention through femoral artery access: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018;19: 151–162. 10.1016/j.carrev.2017.08.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Siracuse J, Farber A, Cheng TW, Raulli SJ, Jones DW, Kalish JA, et al. Common femoral artery antegrade and retrograde approaches have similar access site complications. J Vasc Surg. 2019;69: 1160–1166. 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.06.226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mehran R, Rao SV, Bhatt DL, Gibson CM, Caixeta A, Eikelboom J, et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation. 2011;123: 2736–2747. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.009449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hanna N, Fiorilli P, Gaglia M, Torguson R, Vita A, Ben-dor I, et al. Low-Dose Protamine to Facilitate Earlier Sheath Removal from the FemoralArtery After Peripheral Endovascular. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2011; 24: 278–284. 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2011.00642.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sherev DA, Shaw RE, Brent BN. Angiographic predictors of femoral access site complications: implication for planned percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;65: 196–202. 10.1002/ccd.20354 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Toggweiler S, Gurvitch R, Leipsic J, Wood DA, Willson AB, Binder RK, et al. Percutaneous aortic valve replacement: vascular outcomes with a fully percutaneous procedure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59: 113–118. 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Applegate RJ, Sacrinty MT, Kutcher MA, Kahl FR, Gandhi SK, Santos RM, et al. Trends in vascular complications after diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention via the femoral artery, 1998 to 2007. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1: 317–326. 10.1016/j.jcin.2008.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Fujihara M, Haramitsu Y, Ohshimo K, Yazu Y, Izumi E, Higashimori A, et al. Appropriate hemostasis by routine use of echo ultrasound-guided transfemoral access and vascular closure devices after lower extremity percutaneous revascularization. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2017;32: 233–240. 10.1007/s12928-016-0409-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Looby S, Keeling AN, McErlean A, Given MF, Geoghegan T, Lee MJ. Efficacy and safety of the angioseal vascular closure device post antegrade puncture. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2008;31: 558–562. 10.1007/s00270-007-9281-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chung R, Weller A, Morgan R, Belli AM, Ratnam L. Are complication rates lower with 4-Fr versus 6-Fr transfemoral arterial access—prospective audit at a single interventional radiology centre. CVIR Endovasc. 2018;1: 15. 10.1186/s42155-018-0022-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Schulz-Schüpke S, Helde S, Senta S, Ibrahim T, Linhardt M, Haas K, et al. Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture. The ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312: 1981–1987. 10.1001/jama.2014.15305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yeow KM, Toh CH, Wu CH, Lee RY, Hsieh HC, Liau CT, et al. Sonographically guided antegrade common femoral artery access. J Echo Med. 2002;21: 1413–1416. 10.7863/jum.2002.21.12.1413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Xianwu Cheng

27 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-34172

Ultrasound-guided puncture reduces bleeding-associated complications, regardless of calcified plaque, after endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal lesions, especially using the antegrade procedure: A single-center study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Olazaki

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by January 5, 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xianwu Cheng, M.D., Ph.D., FAHA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Although the topic is interesting, as you will gather from the reviews, the referees identified substantive methodological problems/technical problems, statistical analysis, and data presentation. One reviewer has concerns the novelty of current study with raising the recent studies. The editorial broad member also concurs. You may resubmit a revised version but it will be re-reviewed and there exists no guarantee that even with revision it will necessarily be accepted.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1 why is this report that ultrasound guidance is important in vascular catheterization novel given references 15 and 16 and why is this of general conceptual importance?

a. is it calcification

b. is it antegrade

just not sure why these findings are so conceptually novel as to appeal to the broad readership of

2 should it not be incidence of bleeding when US guidance is used and when not rather than was US guidance used in bleeding or not. Can the authors please provide that analysis? Otherwise we are dealing with small numbers

3 can you report relative risk not just odds ratio?

Reviewer #2: Comments::

1. The primary endpoint is not well defined - what is a "bleeding complication?" You say "main outcome measure of bleeding-associated complications was defined as bleeding at the

puncture site that required medical intervention" - what does this mean? What interventions were performed? This is poorly flushed out

2. How were these bleeding complications treated?

3. Overall tone of the text is very colloquial and should be revised

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 12;16(3):e0248416. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248416.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Dec 2020

Reviewer#1

1 why is this report that ultrasound guidance is important in vascular catheterization novel given references 15 and 16 and why is this of general conceptual importance?

a. is it calcification

b. is it antegrade

just not sure why these findings are so conceptually novel as to appeal to the broad readership of

Thank you very much for your comment.

We apologize for the inadequate explanation.

In references 15 and 16, many risk factors for bleeding-associated complications have been verified, but the antegrade approach and puncture site calcification have not been verified. Although ultrasonic-guided puncture is greatly affected by artifacts in puncture site calcifications, it is novel in that it reduces the risk of bleeding-associated complications, especially in an antegrade puncture. In previous studies showing that ultrasound guide puncture is useful, many of the cases are of retrograde approaches. In modern EVT, the antegrade approach is often required, and the purpose was to retroactively confirm whether the ultrasound guide is effective in the recent EVT situation.

Therefore, we added the objective of this investigation in the Introduction section. (line 2-5, page 4)

2 should it not be incidence of bleeding when US guidance is used and when not rather than was US guidance used in bleeding or not. Can the authors please provide that analysis? Otherwise we are dealing with small numbers

Thank you very much for your comment.

The incidence of bleeding-associated complications with ultrasound-guided puncture was 0% (1/168), and the incidence without ultrasound-guided puncture was 14.4% (34/236). In this study, 236 (58%) of the total 404 cases did not undergo ultrasound-guided puncture. If ultrasound-guided puncture was performed in all cases, the incidence of complications is expected to decrease from the actual 35 cases to 2.4 cases. Therefore, we added the incidence of bleeding-associated complication in the Procedure section. (line 6-11, page 10)

3 can you report relative risk not just odds ratio? 

I would like to thank you for the constructive comment.

The following data have been added to the revised manuscript. (line 2-6, page 12)

(Age ≥ 80 years): relative risk is 2.04

(Ultrasound-guided puncture): relative risk is 0.04

Reviewer#2

1. The primary endpoint is not well defined - what is a "bleeding complication?" You say "main outcome measure of bleeding-associated complications was defined as bleeding at the

puncture site that required medical intervention" - what does this mean? What interventions were performed? This is poorly flushed out

Thank you for your comment.

We apologize for the inadequate explanation.

The medical interventions required are compression, an extension of the bed rest period, transfusion, and operation for hemostasis. I added it in the Endpoints section. (line 3-4, page 5)

2. How were these bleeding complications treated

Thank you for your comment.

Of the 35 patients with bleeding-associated complications, all required manual re-compression and extension of the bed rest period, and 15 patients were treated with blood transfusions and treated without sequelae. No cases required operation for hemostasis.

Therefore, we added it in the Results section. (line 3-6, page 9)

3. Overall tone of the text is very colloquial and should be revised

Thank you very much for your comment.

I have revised the manuscript in accordance with your suggestion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Xianwu Cheng

19 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-34172R1

Ultrasound-guided puncture reduces bleeding-associated complications, regardless of calcified plaque, after endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal lesions, especially using the antegrade procedure: A single-center study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Okazaki

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by March 1, 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xianwu Cheng, M.D., Ph.D., FAHA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Although the original reviewer#1 has still concerned the novelty of current paper, this academic editors recommend the authors figure out the differences between previous and current studies in the discussion section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have answered my queries and yet I still remain unconvinced that there is much novel here or that there is a mechanistic, conceptual or scientific aspect to this study.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed. Ok to accept this paper. I have no further comments to add.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 12;16(3):e0248416. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248416.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Feb 2021

Reviewer #1: The authors have answered my queries and yet I still remain unconvinced that there is much novel here or that there is a mechanistic, conceptual or scientific aspect to this study.

Thank you very much for your comment. We have added the following information to the revised manuscript (page 12, line 12): “Several previous studies have demonstrated that ischemia of the ipsilateral lower extremity is associated with hemostasis after femoral arterypuncture [18, 21]. Therefore, antegrade cannulation, which is a puncture of the lower limb on the lesion side, requires safe puncture without complications. Most of previous studies have demonstrated the usefulness of ultrasound-guided puncture; however, the rates of antegrade cannulation were as low as 0–16% [15, 16, 22, 23], which were not sufficient to evaluate the usefulness of ultrasound-guided puncture in antegrade cannulation. In this study, 48% of patients had antegrade cannulation, which indicates that ultrasound guidance is useful even in patients with a relatively high number of ipsilateral antegrade cannulations.“

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed. Ok to accept this paper. I have no further comments to add.

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Xianwu Cheng

26 Feb 2021

Ultrasound-guided puncture reduces bleeding-associated complications, regardless of calcified plaque, after endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal lesions, especially using the antegrade procedure: A single-center study

PONE-D-20-34172R2

Dear Dr Okazaki

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Xianwu Cheng, M.D., Ph.D., FAHA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

None.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Ok to accept this

paper. I have no further comments to add.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Xianwu Cheng

3 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-34172R2

Ultrasound-guided puncture reduces bleeding-associated complications, regardless of calcified plaque, after endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal lesions, especially using the antegrade procedure: A single-center study

Dear Dr. Okazaki:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Associate Prof. Xianwu Cheng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES