Background: Femoral pseudoaneurysms are clinically heterogeneous, with substantial variability in anatomical features and patient-related bleeding risk. Standard treatment algorithms may be inadequate, particularly in patients receiving anticoagulation or presenting with altered coagulation profiles. A personalized, risk-adapted interventional strategy may optimize outcomes while preserving procedural safety. This study compares ultrasound-guided compression with endovascular and percutaneous therapies and evaluates the safety of minimally invasive approaches across different risk profiles to support individualized management. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included 65 consecutive patients treated for femoral pseudoaneurysms between January 2019 and May 2025. Treatment modalities comprised ultrasound-guided compression, endovascular embolization (coils, covered stents, NBCA–Lipiodol), percutaneous glue injection, and hybrid approaches. Primary endpoints were technical and clinical success. Safety was assessed using pre- and post-procedural INR, platelet count, and hemoglobin levels. High-risk status was defined as ongoing anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy, INR > 1.5, or platelet count <50 × 109/L. Results: Endovascular and percutaneous approaches achieved significantly higher technical (100% vs. 68.5%, p = 0.006) and clinical success rates (100% vs. 77.8%, p = 0.009) compared with ultrasound-guided compression. In minimally invasive cohorts, INR and platelet counts remained stable after treatment, while hemoglobin showed an expected post-procedural decrease (p < 0.001). High-risk patients demonstrated technical success rates comparable to standard-risk patients, with no significant differences in laboratory trends. Favorable outcomes were observed across different embolic materials. Conclusions: Endovascular and percutaneous therapies provide superior effectiveness compared with ultrasound-guided compression while maintaining a reassuring safety profile, even in patients at increased bleeding risk. These findings support a personalized, patient-tailored interventional approach based on individual anatomical and clinical characteristics.
Borzelli et al. (2026) studied this question.