BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is considered a relative contraindication for forearm (radial or ulnar) cardiac catheterization. However, in everyday practice, many ESRD patients are catheterized from the forearm. The aim of this study was to compare femoral and forearm approach for cardiac catheterization in ESRD patients. METHODS: All cardiac catheterization procedures performed in ESRD patients in three Greek hospitals in a 2-year period (2014-2015) were retrospectively evaluated. The primary endpoint of the study was major access-site complication, defined as any Blood Academic Research Consortium class ≥3 bleeding or limb ischemia requiring intervention or prolonging hospitalization. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 124 procedures were performed in 109 ESRD patients: 44 procedures (35.5%) were performed transfemorally and 80 procedures (64.5%) were performed from the forearm approach (77 transradial [96.3%] and 3 transulnar [3.7%]). Forearm access was always performed from the contralateral arm of a functional hemodialysis access site. Sixty-one procedures (49.6%) were diagnostic coronary artery angiographies (CAAs) and 63 procedures (50.4%) were percutaneous coronary interventions with or without CAA. Two deaths and 1 procedure-related myocardial infarction were recorded during hospitalization. Five patients suffered major access-site complications, all from the femoral group (5/44 vs 0/80; P<.01). Three transradial patients had asymptomatic radial artery occlusion after a diagnostic procedure. Five patients (4.0%) had problems with their hemodialysis access site during long-term follow-up, and required a new access site. CONCLUSION: Forearm approach for cardiac catheterization is feasible and safe in ESRD patients. All measures to preserve radial patency should be taken in this high-risk patient group, where a possible forearm artery occlusion might have serious consequences.
BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is considered a relative contraindication for forearm (radial or ulnar) cardiac catheterization. However, in everyday practice, many ESRDpatients are catheterized from the forearm. The aim of this study was to compare femoral and forearm approach for cardiac catheterization in ESRDpatients. METHODS: All cardiac catheterization procedures performed in ESRDpatients in three Greek hospitals in a 2-year period (2014-2015) were retrospectively evaluated. The primary endpoint of the study was major access-site complication, defined as any Blood Academic Research Consortium class ≥3 bleeding or limb ischemia requiring intervention or prolonging hospitalization. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 124 procedures were performed in 109 ESRDpatients: 44 procedures (35.5%) were performed transfemorally and 80 procedures (64.5%) were performed from the forearm approach (77 transradial [96.3%] and 3 transulnar [3.7%]). Forearm access was always performed from the contralateral arm of a functional hemodialysis access site. Sixty-one procedures (49.6%) were diagnostic coronary artery angiographies (CAAs) and 63 procedures (50.4%) were percutaneous coronary interventions with or without CAA. Two deaths and 1 procedure-related myocardial infarction were recorded during hospitalization. Five patients suffered major access-site complications, all from the femoral group (5/44 vs 0/80; P<.01). Three transradial patients had asymptomatic radial artery occlusion after a diagnostic procedure. Five patients (4.0%) had problems with their hemodialysis access site during long-term follow-up, and required a new access site. CONCLUSION: Forearm approach for cardiac catheterization is feasible and safe in ESRDpatients. All measures to preserve radial patency should be taken in this high-risk patient group, where a possible forearm artery occlusion might have serious consequences.