OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the correlates in the development of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) iatrogenic femoral pseudoaneurysm (IFP). BACKGROUND: IFP is one of the more common vascular complications of PCI. METHODS: From February 2008 to June 2012, 10,169 consecutive patients who underwent PCI were retrospectively studied. Patients who developed postprocedural IFP were identified at a single, large tertiary PCI center. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine patients developed IFP (1.38%) and were compared to the cohort that did not. Baseline characteristics were comparable, although patients in the IFP group were older and had a higher incidence of insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus and chronic renal insufficiency (68.4 ± 12.9 vs. 65.4 ± 12.3 years, P = 0.004; 23.9% vs. 14.6%, P = 0.002; and 26.6% vs. 17.3%, P = 0.004, respectively). The non-IFP group had more men and a higher use of vascular closure devices, respectively (64.7% vs. 49.6%, P < 0.001; and 54.1% vs. 26.5%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the use of dual antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapies between the 2 cohorts. Univariable correlates for the development of IFP were female gender, insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus, chronic renal insufficiency, and use of manual compression to achieve hemostasis. On multivariable analysis, the successful deployment of vascular closure device for hemostasis reduced the occurrence of IFP (odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.21-0.46, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The development of IFP following PCI is not uncommon and the appropriate use of vascular closure devices to achieve hemostasis should be encouraged to minimize this vascular complication.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the correlates in the development of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) iatrogenic femoral pseudoaneurysm (IFP). BACKGROUND: IFP is one of the more common vascular complications of PCI. METHODS: From February 2008 to June 2012, 10,169 consecutive patients who underwent PCI were retrospectively studied. Patients who developed postprocedural IFP were identified at a single, large tertiary PCI center. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine patients developed IFP (1.38%) and were compared to the cohort that did not. Baseline characteristics were comparable, although patients in the IFP group were older and had a higher incidence of insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus and chronic renal insufficiency (68.4 ± 12.9 vs. 65.4 ± 12.3 years, P = 0.004; 23.9% vs. 14.6%, P = 0.002; and 26.6% vs. 17.3%, P = 0.004, respectively). The non-IFP group had more men and a higher use of vascular closure devices, respectively (64.7% vs. 49.6%, P < 0.001; and 54.1% vs. 26.5%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the use of dual antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapies between the 2 cohorts. Univariable correlates for the development of IFP were female gender, insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus, chronic renal insufficiency, and use of manual compression to achieve hemostasis. On multivariable analysis, the successful deployment of vascular closure device for hemostasis reduced the occurrence of IFP (odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.21-0.46, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The development of IFP following PCI is not uncommon and the appropriate use of vascular closure devices to achieve hemostasis should be encouraged to minimize this vascular complication.