Is percutaneous or transvascular intervention better for lung cancer? It is recommended to use percutaneous intervention for lung cancer

It is recommended that lung cancer patients receive percutaneous interventional treatment for safety reasons. The reason is that transvascular interventional treatment can easily cause many adverse effects on the rich blood vessels in the lungs.

Lung cancer is a very harmful disease and needs to be treated early. So, is percutaneous intervention or transvascular intervention better for lung cancer? Let's find out.
For lung cancer patients, if they use vascular interventional therapy to treat them, the treatment effect they can achieve may generally be worse. The reason is that the patient's lungs are well supplied with blood, which can easily lead to accidents.
Secondly, the risks induced by vascular treatment of the lungs are often higher than those of other organs. The reason is that the blood supply to the lungs is poor due to the poor blood supply to the branch arteries and spinal arteries, which can easily induce various accidents and cause adverse symptoms such as bronchial artery embolism.
Furthermore, the common course of lung tumors in patients is usually very rich, and even with embolization, it is difficult to achieve an ideal therapeutic effect.
To sum up, it is recommended that lung cancer patients should undergo percutaneous interventional treatment, which can achieve a therapeutic effect that is easier to kill the tumor, and the safety of the treatment can also be guaranteed.