PapersFlow Research Brief
Vascular Procedures and Complications
Research Guide
What is Vascular Procedures and Complications?
Vascular procedures and complications refer to the clinical practices of vascular access in coronary interventions, such as radial and femoral approaches, alongside the management of associated issues including arterial injuries, pseudoaneurysms, hemostasis challenges, access site bleeding, and the deployment of vascular closure devices.
This field encompasses 38,920 published works on vascular access for percutaneous coronary intervention and complication prevention. Studies compare radial versus femoral access strategies and evaluate outcomes in diverse patient groups. Key focuses include vascular trauma management and the role of closure devices in reducing hemostasis-related risks.
Topic Hierarchy
Research Sub-Topics
Radial Access PCI
Compares transradial versus transfemoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention, focusing on procedural success, radiation exposure, and patient comfort. Meta-analyses evaluate learning curves and operator expertise effects.
Femoral Access Complications
Studies incidence, risk factors, and management of hematomas, retroperitoneal bleeds, and pseudoaneurysms post-femoral catheterization. Research identifies predictors like anticoagulation and sheath size.
Vascular Closure Devices
Evaluates efficacy of suture-mediated and collagen-based devices in achieving hemostasis after large-bore arteriotomy. Randomized trials compare time-to-ambulation, infection rates, and cost-effectiveness.
Access Site Bleeding
Investigates predictors, scoring systems, and outcomes of bleeding at PCI access sites in dual antiplatelet/anticoagulant eras. Studies link events to mortality and readmissions via large registries.
Pseudoaneurysms Post-Catheterization
Details diagnosis via duplex ultrasound, natural history, and interventions like thrombin injection or surgery for iatrogenic femoral pseudoaneurysms. Observational data assess incidence trends with access shifts.
Why It Matters
Vascular procedures directly influence outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention, where access site complications like bleeding affect patient survival. Jolly et al. (2011) in 'Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial' demonstrated that radial access reduced major bleeding and net adverse clinical events compared to femoral access in acute coronary syndrome patients. Similarly, vascular closure devices mitigate pseudoaneurysms and arterial injuries post-procedure. Guidelines like 'KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 Update' by Lok et al. (2020) standardize care to lower thrombosis risks in dialysis access, impacting nephrology practice. These advancements reduce procedural mortality, as evidenced in aneurysm repair trials such as 'Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial' by Greenhalgh (2004), where endovascular methods showed lower 30-day mortality rates.
Reading Guide
Where to Start
'Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial' by Jolly et al. (2011) as it provides a clear randomized comparison of access methods with direct clinical outcomes, ideal for grasping core procedural differences.
Key Papers Explained
Jolly et al. (2011) 'Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial' establishes radial access benefits over femoral, building on Ιoannis Iakovou (2005) 'Incidence, Predictors, and Outcome of Thrombosis After Successful Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stents' which details post-intervention thrombosis risks. Lok et al. (2020) 'KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 Update' extends these to chronic access management, while Greenhalgh (2004) 'Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial' contrasts repair techniques. Parodi et al. (1991) 'Transfemoral Intraluminal Graft Implantation for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms' introduces foundational endovascular methods linking to modern complication studies.
Paper Timeline
Most-cited paper highlighted in red. Papers ordered chronologically.
Advanced Directions
Research centers on refining radial access predictors and closure device efficacy from established trials like RIVAL, with ongoing evaluation of thrombosis in stent patients per Iakovou (2005). No recent preprints available, so frontiers follow 2020 guidelines in Lok et al. for vascular access optimization.
Papers at a Glance
| # | Paper | Year | Venue | Citations | Open Access |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism | 2004 | CHEST Journal | 5.9K | ✕ |
| 2 | Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism | 2008 | CHEST Journal | 3.8K | ✕ |
| 3 | Transfemoral Intraluminal Graft Implantation for Abdominal Aor... | 1991 | Annals of Vascular Sur... | 3.3K | ✕ |
| 4 | Incidence, Predictors, and Outcome of Thrombosis After Success... | 2005 | JAMA | 3.1K | ✓ |
| 5 | The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the ca... | 2017 | Journal of Vascular Su... | 2.5K | ✕ |
| 6 | KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 Up... | 2020 | American Journal of Ki... | 2.1K | ✕ |
| 7 | Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and inte... | 2011 | The Lancet | 2.1K | ✕ |
| 8 | Prevention of VTE in Nonorthopedic Surgical Patients | 2012 | CHEST Journal | 2.1K | ✓ |
| 9 | Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in... | 2004 | The Lancet | 2.0K | ✕ |
| 10 | Bypass versus angioplasty in severe ischaemia of the leg (BASI... | 2005 | The Lancet | 1.9K | ✕ |
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the main vascular access approaches in coronary procedures?
Radial and femoral access are primary approaches for percutaneous coronary intervention. Jolly et al. (2011) in 'Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial' found radial access superior for reducing bleeding in acute coronary syndromes. Femoral access remains common despite higher complication rates.
How do vascular closure devices prevent complications?
Vascular closure devices achieve hemostasis after femoral access to prevent pseudoaneurysms and bleeding. The cluster description highlights their use in reducing access site complications post-percutaneous coronary intervention. They promote faster ambulation and lower hematoma risks compared to manual compression.
What is the role of radial access in reducing complications?
Radial access lowers vascular complications like bleeding and arterial injury versus femoral access. Jolly et al. (2011) reported fewer net adverse events with transradial approaches in multicenter trials. This method suits high-risk patients undergoing coronary angiography.
What guidelines exist for vascular access in kidney disease patients?
Lok et al. (2020) provide the 'KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 Update' for optimal fistula and graft creation in dialysis. It addresses thrombosis and infection prevention. These standards improve long-term patency rates.
What outcomes follow drug-eluting stent thrombosis?
Ιoannis Iakovou (2005) in 'Incidence, Predictors, and Outcome of Thrombosis After Successful Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stents' identified thrombosis as a leading cause of death post-percutaneous coronary intervention despite antiplatelet therapy. Predictors include procedural factors and patient comorbidities. Early detection improves survival.
How does endovascular repair compare to open surgery for aneurysms?
Greenhalgh (2004) in 'Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial' showed endovascular repair with lower 30-day mortality. Parodi et al. (1991) pioneered transfemoral intraluminal grafts in 'Transfemoral Intraluminal Graft Implantation for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms'. Long-term monitoring remains essential.
Open Research Questions
- ? What specific predictors of access site bleeding differ between radial and femoral approaches in high-risk populations?
- ? How effective are current vascular closure devices in preventing pseudoaneurysms across diverse patient demographics?
- ? Which patient factors most influence thrombosis outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation?
- ? What long-term durability differences exist between endovascular and open aneurysm repairs?
- ? How do anticoagulation strategies impact hemostasis success in nonorthopedic surgical patients undergoing vascular procedures?
Recent Trends
The field maintains 38,920 works with sustained focus on radial versus femoral access comparisons from Jolly et al.
2011Guidelines evolved through Lok et al. 'KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 Update'. No new preprints or news in the last 12 months indicate stable incorporation of prior multicenter trial findings like RIVAL into practice.
2020Research Vascular Procedures and Complications with AI
PapersFlow provides specialized AI tools for Medicine researchers. Here are the most relevant for this topic:
Systematic Review
AI-powered evidence synthesis with documented search strategies
AI Literature Review
Automate paper discovery and synthesis across 474M+ papers
Find Disagreement
Discover conflicting findings and counter-evidence
Paper Summarizer
Get structured summaries of any paper in seconds
See how researchers in Health & Medicine use PapersFlow
Field-specific workflows, example queries, and use cases.
Start Researching Vascular Procedures and Complications with AI
Search 474M+ papers, run AI-powered literature reviews, and write with integrated citations — all in one workspace.
See how PapersFlow works for Medicine researchers