Feasibility and safety of the antecubital venous access for right heart catheterization in patients with pulmonary hypertension. (February 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Avriel, Avital; Kassirer, Michael; Shimony, Avi; Tsaban, Gal; Bar-Shai, Amir; Merkin, Miri; Rosenstein, Gabriel; Zahger, Doron; Wiesen, Jonathan; Cafri, Carlos
• Is Part Of: Pulmonary circulation. Volume 10:Number 1(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-02
• Subjects: pulmonary circulation and pulmonary hypertension -- collagen vascular diseases; Pulmonary circulation -- Periodicals; Pulmonary circulation; Electronic journals -- Sciences; Periodicals; 616.24005
• DOI: 10.1177/2045894019875380
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2045-8932

Abstract

Background: The diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension requires right heart catheterization (RHC) which is typically performed via proximal venous access (PVA). Antecubital venous access (AVA) is an alternative approach for RHC that can minimize complications, decrease procedural duration and allow for immediate patient recovery. A direct comparison between the two procedures in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) is lacking. Objectives: To determine the feasibility, safety, and adoption rates of AVA-RHC as compared with ultrasound-guided PVA in a subpopulation of patients with PH. Methods: All patients who underwent RHC for evaluation of PH between December 2014 and March 2017 at a single large academic medical center were included in this study. Demographic, procedural and outcomes data were retrieved from the medical records. Results: In total, 159 RHC were included (124 AVA, 35 PVA). The duration of RHC was significantly shorter in the AVA compared with PVA group (53 (IQR 38–70) vs. 80 (IQR 56–95) min, respectively, p < 0.001). 19% of AVA (24/124) procedures were switched to PVA. Failed attempts at AVA were more common in scleroderma (50% failure rate). Success rate of AVA increased from 81.2% to 93.3% from the first to last quartile. Fluoroscopy time was similar in both groups, the difference between the groups in the radiation dose are not statistically significant (54.5 (IQR 25–110) vs. 84.5 (IQR 30–134)). Conclusion: AVA-RHC is a feasible and safe alternative to PVA in patients with PH who are evaluated for pulmonary arterial hypertension diagnosis. Our experience and rapid adoption rate support the use of AVA as the preferred access site for RHC in uncomplicated PH patients.