AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Chat with us
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2641-0419/351
1 Hegau-Bodensee Klinikum Singen, Academic teaching hospital of the University Freiburg, Germany
2 University Heart Center Freiburg Bad-Krozingen, University Freiburg, Germany.
*Corresponding Author: Marc Kollum, Clinic of Internal Medicine I. (Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine) Hegau-Bodensee Klinikum Singen Virchow Str. 10 78244 Singen.
Citation: Marc Kollum, Anja Gutmann, Stefan Köberich, Katja Baum, Felicia Beller, et al, (2024), A prospective randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the complication rate and patient comfort using three different vascular closure strategies following coronary angiography, J. Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, 7(2); DOI:10.31579/2641-0419/351
Copyright: © 2024, Marc Kollum. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 14 February 2024 | Accepted: 27 February 2024 | Published: 08 March 2024
Keywords: femoral arterial access; coronarangiography; vascular closure device; external compression device; manual compression; arterial access complication
Background: The use of vascular closure devices is now common in clinical practice for femoral artery puncture, although manual compression remains the current gold standard. The development and use of vascular closure devices are aimed at improving patient comfort and avoiding complications such as hematoma, pseudoaneurysm formation, and the need for blood transfusion in the event of significant bleeding or surgical revision at the puncture site.
Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate the complication rate after femoral arterial puncture using different closure techniques. Furthermore, patient comfort will also be measured.
Material and Methods: In this prospective, two-centre study, 142 patients were randomized into three groups: the Vascular Closure Device (VCD, Cordis), manual compression (MC) and External Compression Device (ECD, Maquet). The primary endpoint is combined with the evaluation of hematoma greater than 5 cm, pseudoaneurysm formation, the need for blood transfusion or relevant bleeding with a hemoglobin drop greater than 2 g/dl, the occurrence of retroperitoneal hematoma, pressure ulcers greater than grade 2, ischemia of the ipsilateral limb, or nerve damage. Follow-up visits are scheduled at 24 hours, 7 days, and 30 days.
Results: The ratio of gender and pre-existing conditions within the randomized groups is almost equal. Medication before coronary angiography is comparable. Significantly more interventions are performed in the VCD group. Correspondingly, the procedure time is longer, and dual antiplatelet therapy is prescribed more often. Compression time and time to first hemostasis were significantly longer in the VCD group. The number of rebleeds after primary hemostasis is significantly higher in the ECD group. None of the enrolled patients suffered major bleeding or required a blood transfusion. No retroperitoneal hematoma was observed. Overall, there is one AV fistula in the MC group, two pseudoaneurysms in the VCD group, and one pseudoaneurysm in the ECD group. Pain was reported at significantly higher rates in the MC group than in either device group. The highest level of pain is reported within 48 hours in the MC group, and voiding dysfunction is significantly more frequent in the MC group. The same results are observed for sleep quality. Patients in the MC group reported significantly fewer hematomas greater than 5 cm at 7 days compared to patients who received a VCD.
Conclusion: Our results show no significant difference in the achievement of the combined primary endpoint of all three groups. However, the rate of rebleeding after primary hemostasis is significantly lower in the VCD group, even with prolonged procedure time. There was no difference in the incidence of MACCE. Patient pain and voiding dysfunction within 24 hours are highest in the MC group. No difference is reported between 7 and 30 days.
Any cardiac or peripheral catheterization procedure requires vascular access at the start and hemostasis at the finish. A wide range of procedures, such as hemodynamic assessment, coronary and peripheral arterial angiography and intervention, and structural heart disease intervention, are now included in catheter-based diagnosis and therapy [1,2]. The common femoral artery, which is located above the femoral bifurcation and below the hypogastric artery, is the recommended arterial access site for cardiac procedures. Comparing the placement of catheters and introducer sheaths in this region with a more superior arteriotomy or inferior arteriotomy — which raise the risk of hematoma and pseudoaneurysm or reduces the risk of vascular complications [1–3].
Regarding their safety, the use of vascular closure devices in interventional practice has produced conflicting findings. The American Heart Association has recommended this as a class III strategy to lower vascular complications during interventional procedures[2,4,5]. For patients undergoing these operations, vascular access bleeding and complications continue to be a major cause of morbidity[6]. Thus, in the cath lab, enhancing the safety of vascular closure to accomplish hemostasis has taken precedence. According to recent studies, manual compression (MC) is more effective than vascular closure devices for both significant bleeding and minor vascular complications[7–9]. Vascular closure devices are now frequently used in clinical settings, while MC is still the preferred method as of right now.
The goal of developing and utilizing vascular closure devices is to increase patient comfort while preventing problems like hemorrhage, the formation of pseudoaneurysms, and the requirement for blood transfusion in the event of severe bleeding or surgical revision at the puncture site [4,10,11]. During femoral access coronary angiography, patients frequently express dissatisfaction regarding the comfort of manual compression [8–10].
The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the complication rate after femoral arterial puncture for coronary angiography and/or coronary intervention and subsequent closure using different closure methods. The secondary objective is to measure patient comfort as a function of the closure system used.
Study design, setting and participants.
The Trail is a prospective, randomized clinical trial intended to evaluate three distinct methods of closure following femoral artery access for the purpose of coronary intervention or diagnostics. We invited 160 patients who met the criteria for coronary angiography to take part in our, randomized trial between June 2011 and July 2014.
The three different techniques of vessel closure are pressure bandaging after manual compression (MC), the Vascular Closure Device (VCD, Cordis) and the External Compression Device (ECD, Maquet).
Inclusion Criteria. The following criteria were met by the patients: a body mass index of less than 30 kg/m2, a femoral access with a 5 or 6 Fr sheath, sinister or dexter puncture of the common femoral artery, age greater than 18 years, and a properly signed informed consent.
Exclusion Criteria. Patients with severe calcification or atheromatosis of the femoral artery, prior femoral or iliac vascular intervention, uncontrolled blood pressure greater than 180 mmHg, or a history of femoral vascular surgery or bypass.
A 24-hour notice was required for informed consent before coronary angiography. Vascular ultrasonography was done both prior to and following the treatment. The patient was randomly assigned to receive the vessel closure technique after the coronary intervention or diagnostic. A physician-assessed questionnaire was completed by the patient within 24 hours following the coronary angiography. Following angiography, a clinical follow-up was conducted on days 7 and 30.
The final protocol was approved by the ethics committee. The study was conducted in accordance with GCP guidelines. All patients gave written, informed consent. The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00000802.
Study devices.
The method advised by the manufacturer for device placement was followed. The device had to be operated by the user at least fifty times.
Manual Compression (MC). The MC of the puncture site is currently the gold standard for closing a femoral arterial puncture site after cardiac catheterization. Manual compression is applied for a minimum of 20 minutes and is automatically increased until the bleeding stops. After manual compression, a groin pressure bandage is applied. The duration of the pressure bandage depends on the size (diameter) of the puncture set (sheath) and the blood thinning administered during the procedure. The duration of the compression bandage depended on the size of the sheath (5F or 6F) and the use of a GpIIbIIIa inhibitor during the procedure. Thus, the duration of compression bandaging was 6 hours when a 5F sheath was used without GpIIbIIIa and 12 hours with GpIIbIIIa. When a 6F sheath was used, the compression bandage was applied for 12 hours without GpIIbIIIa and 24 hours with GpIIbIIIa. At the end of the resting period, the pressure dressing is removed while the puncture site is checked.
Vascular Closure Device (VCD). The VCD (Cordis) is a bioabsorbable device designed to seal the femoral artery puncture site in patients undergoing diagnostic or interventional procedures using a standard 6F sheath. The device achieves hemostasis through a bioabsorbable polyglycolic acid plug that is released into the femoral artery puncture channel by an optically guided mechanism. The plug, which rests completely extravascularly, then hydrolyzes to CO2 and H2O via the Krebs cycle over a period of 3 months. After direct vascular occlusion, the patient must remain in bed for 2 hours and can then get up under supervision.
External Compression Device (ECD). The ECD (Maquet) is a sterile groin compression system used to occlude the femoral artery after a puncture during cardiac catheterization. The manually assisted closure technique is used in the registry. The location of the maximum pulse, the anatomy, the angle of the puncture, and the direction of blood flow are checked. The introducer sheath is retracted approximately 2-3 cm so that the sheath head is outside of the Safeguard System adhesive area. Clean and dry the patient's skin. The ECD system is applied. The inflation syringe is attached, and the balloon is filled with approximately 40 cc of air. The syringe is removed to maintain pressure on the balloon. The airlock is withdrawn, and manual compression is applied to the balloon for 2-3 minutes or until hemostasis is achieved. The inflation of the balloon is adjusted so that the peripheral pulse is still palpable at the foot and hemostasis is still present in the groin. The Safeguard System remains in place depending on the size (diameter) of the puncture set (sheath) and the blood thinning administered during the procedure. The length of the hospital stay depended on the size of the sheath (5F or 6F) and the use of a GpIIbIIIa inhibitor during the procedure. For example, when a 5F sheath was used without GpIIbIIIa, the length of hospital stay was 6 hours and 12 hours with GpIIbIIIa. When a 6F sheath was used, the length of stay was 12 hours without GpIIbIIIa and 24 hours with GpIIbIIIa. At the end of the infusion period, the balloon is slowly deflated with a syringe while the puncture site is checked, and the dressing is carefully removed.
Ultrasound Study
The right and left inguinal arteries' angiological results are recorded before cardiac catheterization. This comprises measuring the diameter of the vessel, calculating the degree of stenosis, and evaluating atheromatous and calcified lesions. 48 hours after cardiac catheterization, the punctured inguinal vessel is monitored with duplex sonographic technology. This includes assessing the presence of new vascular lesions, aneurysms, hematomas, and AV fistulas.
Patient Comfort Analysis
Prior to and following cardiac catheterization, patient comfort was evaluated. Patients evaluate their pain level right now, mobility, and urination. The quality of sleep is evaluated last. Following the heart catheterization process, patients are also questioned regarding how secure they feel utilizing the closure system.
A non-inferiority test was used for the primary endpoint. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of hematoma greater than 5 cm, pseudoaneurysm formation, need for blood transfusion or relevant bleeding with a drop of more than 2 mg/dl of hemoglobin, occurrence of retroperitoneal bleeding, pressure ulcer greater than stage 2, ischemia of the ipsilateral limb, or nerve injury within 24 hours. To estimate the number of patients per group based on 1:1:1 randomization, we tested whether the odds ratio was close to 1.00. The hypotheses are represented in the odds ratio model as follows: H0: ln(OR) ≥ δ; H1: ln(OR) < δ. Assuming an incidence of 5% for the primary endpoint and a delta of 1.30, the calculated number of patients was 43 in each group to achieve 80% power. This power margin was selected based on clinical judgment and expertise. Categorical variables were compared using ANOVA. All continuous variables are expressed as the mean ± SD. Differences between proportions and t-tests were calculated using the StataIC statistical program.
Following coronary angiography, 142 patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. 46 patients (32%), 49 patients (34.9%), and 47 patients (32.9%) used closure devices, manual compression, and compression devices. Within the randomized groups, the relationship between gender and pre-existing conditions is nearly equal. Prescription drugs prior to coronary angiography are similar as well. Tables 1 and 2 provide information on the patient's history and medication taken both before and after the procedure.
Table 1. Patient history
Table 2. Medication before and after Procedure
Interventions during coronary angiography were performed in 23.1% (35 total) of all patients. There were significantly more interventions in the VCD group. Accordingly, the duration of the procedure was longer in this group (Table 3).
Table 3: Procedere related data
Time of compression and time to first hemostasis were significantly longer in the MC group, with 12:43 +/- 1:38 minutes versus 7:08 +/- 2:05 minutes in the ECD group and 3:23 +/- 0:48 minutes in the VCD group. The number of rebleeds after primary hemostasis was significantly higher in the ECD group, with 15% (7 in total) versus 4% (2 in total) in the VCD group and 2% (1 in total) in the MC group (Tabel 3).
Not one of the enrolled patients needed a blood transfusion or experienced significant bleeding. There was no retroperitoneal hemorrhage. Overall, the
MC group had one AV fistula, the VCD group had two aneurysm spuriums, and the ECD group had one aneurysm spurium. These were all insignificant occurrences. The 24-hour pre-intervention ultrasound, the exclusion criteria involving prior femoral vessel surgery or bypass, and prior femoral or iliac vessel intervention may have contributed to the lack of device failures documented in our trial. There was no infection reported.
Table 4 displays the findings of the femoral artery ultrasound examination both before and after the puncture and occlusion.
Table 4: Duplex Sonografie Evaluation
Results of Patients comfort
The pre-intervention assessment of patient comfort showed a balanced randomization of problems with mobility, pain, and quality of night sleep. An observed difference in micturition problems is not significant (Table 5).
The first assessment of patient comfort within 48 hours showed a significant difference in pain during arterial occlusion. In the MC group, the pain level was reported as 1.5±0.6 vs. 0.7±0.4 with the occlusion VCD device and 0.8±0.6 with the ECD device. The pain level within 48 hours was not significantly different between the three closure methods. However, the highest level of pain was still reported in the MC group, with 1.3±0.8 vs. 1.1±0.6 for the ECD device and 0.5±0.4 for the VCD device (Table 5).
Patients were asked about mobility limitations within 48 hours after coronary angiography. With a p-value of 0.06 there is no significance, but overall, the pain level was highest in the MC group with 3.6±1.0 vs. 2.3±0.9 in the VCD Device group and 2.7±0.9 in the ECD group. The difference in voiding problems was highly significant. In the MC group, this problem was rated at 3.0±1.1 vs. 1.5±0.8 in the VCD group and 0.9±0.5 in the MC group. Disturbance of sleep quality was significantly lower in the VCD group, with 2.6±0.3 vs. 3.6±0.4 in the MC group and 3.3±0.4 in the ECD group (Table 5).
Table 5: Patient Comfort Analysis
The incidence of hematoma >5 cm and decubitus ulcers showed no significant difference between the three methods tested.
Follow up 7 and 30 days
Follow-up was conducted by telephone 7 and 30 days after coronary angiography. At the 7-day evaluation, no significant differences were found in mobility, feeling of safety, micturition problems, quality of sleep at night,
or pain level. However, there is a significant difference in the incidence of hematoma > 5 cm. The MC group reported hematoma > 5 cm in 6% (total 3 patients), whereas patients in the occlusion VCD group reported hematoma > 5 cm in 24% (11 patients) and 21% (10 patients) in the ECD group (Table 6).
At 30 days, there were no significant differences in the appearance of the hematoma (Table 6).
Table 6. Follow up
The purpose of the clinical trial was to evaluate the complication rates as well as the comfort of patients with three distinct arterial occlusion techniques. In terms of safety, there was just one noteworthy distinction. The ECD group experienced a notably elevated incidence of rebleeding following primary hemostasis, with 15% of cases in contrast to 2% in the MC group and 4% in the VCD group. This was noted even though the VCD group's coronary angiography took noticeably longer and had a noticeably higher intervention rate. Following initial hemostasis, these rebleeds did not cause significant bleeding, blood transfusions, or a decrease in hemoglobin levels. Furthermore, compared to the other two devices, patients in the MC group reported a noticeably higher incidence of micturition issues within 48 hours. Additionally, there was a significant improvement in the VCD group's quality of sleep at night.
A comparative study of the efficacy of the ExoSeal extrafemoral vessel closure device with the well-validated AngioSeal plug-anchor system for vessel closure after coronary angiography and PCI showed that the use of ExoSeal was no worse than treatment with AngioSeal in terms of bleeding, hematoma, false aneurysms, and device failure. The use of ExoSeal was associated with a higher, although not significant, rate of device failure and significantly less pain as measured by the Borg scaleccone[12].
The occurrence of vascular complications is an independent predictor of non-fatal myocardial infarction or death within one year of surgery and has been associated with a significant increase in mortality[13,14].
Data from several studies have shown an association between a lower risk of bleeding with the use of a vascular closure device compared to manual compression[2,3,8,15–18]. In the observational study ACUITY[19], which was conducted in patients with NSTEMI, the authors reported that a VCD was used in 37.1% of patients who underwent transfemoral PCI. In the comparator arm of the study, VCD was found to reduce the size of a puncture site bleed by 22% compared to manual compression.
In more than 1.5 million US patients who underwent PCI and were included in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, the use of a VCD was associated with a significant 23% reduction in bleeding after the procedure. Patients with a higher risk profile benefited in particular[6]. In this study, the lowest rate of periprocedural bleeding occurred in patients who received VCDs for femoral access site closure and who were also treated with bivalirudin rather than unfractionated heparin[6,19].
However, meta-analyses of 30 randomized trials found no significant benefit of a VCD compared to manual compression in terms of the incidence of inguinal hematoma, inguinal hemorrhage, AV fistula or pseudoaneurysm. The various vascular devices used to close femoral accesses were not superior to manual compression in reducing complications, but they did offer a shorter time to hemostasis(20). A further meta-analysis of 40 randomized studies with a total of 16,868 patients also found no significant difference in the use of a VCD compared to manual compression(17).
This did not include the results of the ISAR-CLOSURE study, which compared intravascular, extravascular VCD and manual compression in 4,524 patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography using a 6F sheath [9]. The study demonstrated the non-inferiority of VCDs compared to manual compression. The use of VCDs resulted in less hematoma and a shorter time to haemostasis. The intravascular VCDs showed a lower rate of device failure than the extravascular VCDs[9].
Our results show no significant difference in the achievement of the combined primary endpoint between all three groups. However, primary hemostasis is achieved more rapidly with the use of VCD than with MC or ECD. Similarly, the rate of rebleeding after primary hemostasis is achieved is lower with the use of VCD or MC, regardless of the duration of the procedure. No difference in MACCE was observed between the different closure strategies. However, patients with MC reported more pain and voiding dysfunction in the first 24 hours. This difference was not observed at 7 and 30 days. Finally, we conclude that there is no decisive advantage to the use of any closure system in daily clinical practice.
There had been plans for 600 patients in total. The spike in the number of coronary angiographies conducted using radial access was the cause of the enrollment pause. As a result, there are much fewer patients included, which reduces the power. Furthermore, based on their medical histories, the enrolled patients were randomized into three highly homogeneous groups. However, the patients that are included do not accurately depict the typical day-to-day activities of a clinical setting.
The telephone was used for the 7- and 30-day follow-up. Therefore, the size and occurrence of the hematoma that was reported during the 7-day follow-up are not verified by trained personnel.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
