ArticleVascular medicine (London, England)2026
Home-based intravenous iloprost by portable elastomeric pump in chronic limb-threatening ischemia: A pilot study.
Article in Vascular medicine (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIloprost has been proposed as a pharmacological option for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in whom revascularization is either not feasible or has been unsuccessful. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intravenous iloprost at low infusion rates via an elastomeric pump at home (EP-iloprost) versus higher infusion rates via a peristaltic pump in the hospital (PP-iloprost) for 1 year.
methodsThis was a cohort study conducted in 'no-option' patients for revascularization with CLTI. The follow-up was 3 years. The primary endpoint was the incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs); the secondary outcome was the composite of all-cause death and major amputations.
resultsWe enrolled 56 patients who received EP-iloprost as a pilot study. Their outcomes were compared with a cohort of 48 patients who had received PP-iloprost. AEs were reported in 15 (31.3%) patients who received PP-iloprost and in eight (14.3%) who received EP-iloprost (
conclusionsThese hypothesis-generating data suggest that low-rate infusion of EP-iloprost at home is better tolerated and potentially more effective than high-rate infusion with PP in a hospital setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.