PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 30, 2026npj Cardiovascular Health2 citationsOpen Access

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and vascular access complications: A contemporary review

View Full Paper
TATanawat AttachaipanichMKMuzamil KhawajaETEdwin A. Takahashi

Key Points

  • To evaluate the complications associated with percutaneous coronary intervention and compare access approaches.
  • Reviewed complications of transradial approach versus transfemoral approach for coronary interventions.
  • Discussed patient selection strategies to optimize procedural outcomes.
  • Transradial approach reduces bleeding and vascular complications compared to transfemoral approach.
  • Identified intraprocedural and postprocedural complications, including spasm, perforation, and hematoma.
  • Transfemoral approach carries a higher risk of complications in acute coronary syndrome settings.

Abstract

Abstract Transradial approach (TRA) is preferred over transfemoral approach (TFA) for percutaneous coronary interventions due to lower bleeding, vascular complications, and mortality, particularly in acute coronary syndrome. Radial access complications included intraprocedural events (spasm, dissection, and perforation) and postprocedural events (radial artery occlusion, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, nerve injury, and infection). TFA remains necessary in certain settings but carries higher complication risk. Optimizing patient selection and procedural planning is essential to minimize vascular complications.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Attachaipanich et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f2a42a8c0f03fd677633d8https://doi.org/10.1038/s44325-026-00125-6
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper