Home > Journals > Minerva Cardiology and Angiology > Past Issues > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2017 February;65(1) > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2017 February;65(1):74-80



To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



Minerva Cardioangiologica 2017 February;65(1):74-80

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4725.16.04246-8


language: English

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


Transradial access (TRA) has increased in utilization, although operators have been reluctant to use TRA in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS). Experienced TRA operators have started using TRA in CS patients, although the literature is scant. Several datasets have included CS patients in their study population, while others have systematically excluded CS patients when comparing outcomes with TRA to transfemoral access (TFA). In this review, we have compiled the existing literature describing outcomes of patients presenting with CS who underwent PCI using TRA versus TFA. Each dataset has been described in detail and its study population, methodology and conclusions have been critically examined after obtaining all published and most non-published details pertaining to CS patients in these datasets. The contemporary literature consists of observational data comparing access-site related outcomes in CS patients undergoing PCI. Although the composite outcome appears to favor TRA over TFA, the high likelihood of selection bias, with the sickest CS patients getting triaged to TFA, makes an aggressive interpretation of the existing results rather difficult. Despite the operating biases, a few high-quality adjusted analyses clearly report better outcomes in CS patients undergoing PCI via TRA, highlighting an immediate necessity to perform an appropriately powered randomized evaluation of this important question.

KEY WORDS: Cardiogenic shock - Percutaneous coronary intervention - Myocardial infarction - Vascular access devices

top of page