Explore › Intervention › Bypass-first infrageniculate revascularization
Intervention

Bypass-first infrageniculate revascularization

Also known as: Bypass-first infrageniculate revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (non-ESRD patients) CLTI
3 findings 1 paper 3 related entities View in graph →

Related entities

conditions
Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia1
outcomes
30-day major amputation1
studys
PMC89061901

Findings (27)

None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

PMC8906190
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →

Papers (1)