Cite
Ultrasound- Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Chronic Total Occlusions: Insights From FOUND BLOOD CTO Registry.
MLA
Piedimonte, Giulio, et al. “Ultrasound- Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Chronic Total Occlusions: Insights From FOUND BLOOD CTO Registry.” Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, vol. 38, May 2022, pp. 61–67. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2021.08.024.
APA
Piedimonte, G., Bertagnin, E., Castellana, C., Ferrarotto, L., Mangione, R., Venuti, G., Valvo, R., Scalia, M., Capodanno, D., Tamburino, C., & La Manna, A. (2022). Ultrasound- Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Chronic Total Occlusions: Insights From FOUND BLOOD CTO Registry. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, 38, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2021.08.024
Chicago
Piedimonte, Giulio, Enrico Bertagnin, Carmelo Castellana, Luigi Ferrarotto, Riccardo Mangione, Giuseppe Venuti, Roberto Valvo, et al. 2022. “Ultrasound- Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Chronic Total Occlusions: Insights From FOUND BLOOD CTO Registry.” Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine 38 (May): 61–67. doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2021.08.024.