OBJECTIVES: To determine feasibility, safety, and adoption rates of right heart catheterization (RHC) using antecubital venous access (AVA) as compared to using the traditional approach of proximal venous access (PVA). BACKGROUND: RHC via PVA (i.e., internal jugular, femoral or subclavian) is generally a low risk procedure; however, complications may occur and are usually access site related. RHC via an antecubital approach has regained attention given the increase in transradial left heart catheterizations. METHODS: Patients undergoing RHC for any indication at a single large academic medical center were identified over a 5-year period (January 2008 to December 2012) from a database. Medical records were retrospectively analyzed for demographic, procedural and outcomes data. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-two RHC procedures were included (106 AVA, 166 PVA). The adoption rate of AVA for RHC increased rapidly since its introduction in our laboratory in 2010 (100% PVA in 2008 and 2009, 85% AVA in 2012). All procedures were successful; however, 6% of procedures required additional, alternate access to the original site. Initial success rates were similar in the two groups (91 vs. 96% for AVA and PVA respectively, P = 0.12). Fluoroscopy time was shorter in the group of patients who underwent the procedure via AVA. The complication rate was 0% in the AVA group compared with 3% in the PVA group (P = 0.16). CONCLUSION: RHC via the AVA is a feasible and safe alternative to PVA. Our experience and rapid adoption support the use AVA as the access site of choice for RHC in uncomplicated patients.
OBJECTIVES: To determine feasibility, safety, and adoption rates of right heart catheterization (RHC) using antecubital venous access (AVA) as compared to using the traditional approach of proximal venous access (PVA). BACKGROUND: RHC via PVA (i.e., internal jugular, femoral or subclavian) is generally a low risk procedure; however, complications may occur and are usually access site related. RHC via an antecubital approach has regained attention given the increase in transradial left heart catheterizations. METHODS:Patients undergoing RHC for any indication at a single large academic medical center were identified over a 5-year period (January 2008 to December 2012) from a database. Medical records were retrospectively analyzed for demographic, procedural and outcomes data. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-two RHC procedures were included (106 AVA, 166 PVA). The adoption rate of AVA for RHC increased rapidly since its introduction in our laboratory in 2010 (100% PVA in 2008 and 2009, 85% AVA in 2012). All procedures were successful; however, 6% of procedures required additional, alternate access to the original site. Initial success rates were similar in the two groups (91 vs. 96% for AVA and PVA respectively, P = 0.12). Fluoroscopy time was shorter in the group of patients who underwent the procedure via AVA. The complication rate was 0% in the AVA group compared with 3% in the PVA group (P = 0.16). CONCLUSION: RHC via the AVA is a feasible and safe alternative to PVA. Our experience and rapid adoption support the use AVA as the access site of choice for RHC in uncomplicated patients.
Authors: Sang Hyun Lee; Kook Jin Chun; Dae Sung Lee; Soo Yong Lee; Jongmin Hwang; Min Ku Chon; Ki Won Hwang; Jeong Su Kim; Yong Huyn Park; June Hong Kim Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Maciej Grymuza; Katarzyna Małaczyńska-Rajpold; Stanisław Jankiewicz; Andrzej Siniawski; Marek Grygier; Przemysław Mitkowski; Marta Kałużna-Oleksy; Maciej Lesiak; Tatiana Mularek-Kubzdela; Aleksander Araszkiewicz Journal: Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 1.426
Authors: Avital Avriel; Michael Kassirer; Avi Shimony; Gal Tsaban; Amir Bar-Shai; Miri Merkin; Gabriel Rosenstein; Doron Zahger; Jonathan Wiesen; Carlos Cafri Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 3.017