Ricerca avanzata

Home > Riviste > Minerva Cardioangiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Articoli online first > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2016 Oct 11



Rivista sulle Malattie del Cuore e dei Vasi

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Angiology and Vascular Pathology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,752

Periodicità: Bimestrale

ISSN 0026-4725

Online ISSN 1827-1618


Minerva Cardioangiologica 2016 Oct 11

Cardiogenic shock and access site choice

Samir B. PANCHOLY 1, 2, Gaurav PATEL 2, Sukrut P. NANAVATY 2, Maitri S. PANCHOLY 3

1 The Commonwealth Medical College, Scranton, PA, USA; 2 The Wright Center For Graduate Medical Education, Scranton, PA, USA; 3 Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Cardiogenic shock (CS) following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a devastating complication and continues to have a high mortality rate. Coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the cornerstone in the management of CS; however, PCI-related access-site bleeding has been observed to be more prevalent in CS patients. Historically, PCI by transfemoral access (TFA) has been the preferred approach over transradial access (TRA) in CS patients due to weak radial pulse, operators’ inexperience with TRA, and the use of TFA for concomitant mechanical cardiovascular support. No data comparing TRA versus TFA in CS patients are available in the contemporary literature, although several studies have compared the clinical outcomes between PCI by TRA and TFA in STEMI patients and have included patients with CS on presentation. In this manuscript, we will review these studies with primary focus on outcomes comparing PCI by TRA vs. TFA in CS patients.

lingua: Inglese


inizio pagina