Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 14, 2026

Computed Tomography (CT) Guided Implantation of a Totally Implantable Venous Access Port (TIVAP) through Subclavian Vein
Published on: January 13, 2026
Vascular access complications: diagnosis and management
Raghu Kolluri1, Brian Fowler, Shailesh Nandish
1Prairie Cardiovascular & Prairie Heart Institute, 319 East Mason St, Springfield, IL, 62702, USA, Rkolluri@prairieheart.com.
Insights
Vascular access site complications occur in 0.8-1.8% of diagnostic cardiac catheterizations and up to 9% of percutaneous coronary interventions. These complications are likely underestimated, especially with new endovascular procedures requiring larger sheaths.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Interventions
- Vascular Access Management
Background:
- Vascular access site complications range from 0.8% to 1.8% for diagnostic cardiac catheterization and up to 9% for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).
- Femoral vessels are the primary access site for many cardiovascular interventions.
- Emerging endovascular procedures like EVAR, TEVAR, and TAVR necessitate larger sheaths (18Fr-24Fr), increasing complication risk.
Purpose of the Study:
- To highlight the potential underestimation of vascular access site complications.
- To emphasize the need for prompt identification and management of these complications.
- To discuss the impact of increasing sheath size in endovascular interventions on access site safety.
Main Methods:
- Review of existing literature on vascular access site complications.
- Analysis of complication rates associated with diagnostic and interventional cardiac procedures.
- Consideration of the evolving landscape of endovascular interventions and their access requirements.
Main Results:
- The true incidence of access site complications, particularly from non-coronary interventions, is unknown and likely underestimated.
- Larger sheath sizes required for advanced endovascular procedures increase the risk of vascular access complications.
- Current methods like vascular closure devices and imaging guidance have not eliminated these complications.
Conclusions:
- Vascular access site complications are a significant concern, potentially underestimated in current literature.
- Cardiovascular specialists must be vigilant in identifying and managing access site issues.
- Further research and improved techniques are needed to mitigate risks associated with larger access sheaths in endovascular procedures.
Opinion Statement:
The incidence of vascular access site related complications ranges between 0.8 % to 1.8 % of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and up to 9 % of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) [1]. The femoral vessels at the groin are used as the access site for the majority of percutaneous coronary, peripheral arterial and venous, and electrophysiologic interventions. With emergence of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), larger access sheaths (up to 18Fr-24Fr) are required, which further increases the potential for access site complications. The true incidence of access site complications arising from non-coronary interventions is unknown; hence it is likely that the total incidence of vascular access site complications is greatly underestimated. Vascular closure devices (VCDs), radial artery access, fluoroscopic guidance, and ultrasound guidance have all been used with a hope to minimize these complications. Despite these attempts, vascular access complications have not been eliminated. Cardiovascular specialists must promptly identify these complications and manage them appropriately.
Related Concept Videos
Peripheral Artery Disease V: Postoperative Nursing Management
Venous Thrombosis IV: Nursing Management
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Endocarditis IV: Nursing Management