ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Vascular access options for complex high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary interventions: contemporary strategies, trade-offs, and practical algorithms.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vascular access is an important component of CHIP planning that influences procedural feasibility, safety, and completeness. It affects bleeding and vascular complications, guide-catheter support, compatibility with intravascular imaging and calcium-modification devices, chronic total occlusion techniques, closure and bailout options, and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) planning. Contemporary CHIP populations are increasingly older or frail and more often have chronic kidney disease, peripheral artery disease, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, prior bypass surgery, calcification, or CTO; access choice should extend beyond radial vs. femoral. Summary: This review appraises proximal and distal radial, femoral, ulnar, and brachial access; sheathless, slender, and RailTracking strategies; large-bore femoral workflows; and access planning when MCS is considered. We discuss preprocedural arterial assessment, ultrasound and micropuncture, prior access footprint, closure feasibility, hostile femoral anatomy, alternative access, and complication prevention and rescue. The available literature supports a non-dogmatic approach in which access architecture is matched to patient vulnerability, arterial anatomy, lesion complexity, guide and device requirements, support needs, haemostasis feasibility, and bailout planning. Recent randomised evidence further reinforces selective rather than routine prophylactic MCS in nonemergent high-risk PCI. Conclusions: Forearm access should remain central whenever it permits procedural success without compromising device delivery, imaging, guide support, or bailout flexibility. Femoral access remains indispensable when large-bore support, maximal guide stability, complex device delivery, or rapid escalation are anticipated. Within a comprehensive CHIP plan, the preferred access architecture is the smallest one that enables the intended revascularisation, safe haemostasis, and timely rescue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.