Two in one is better than one plus one: comparison of adverse events between combining electrophysiological examination and coronary angiography versus performing them consecutively.

PURPOSE: In some patients, both an electrophysiological examination (EPS) and a coronary angiography (CA) are necessary. It might be preferable to choose a combined approach of EPS and CA versus performing them consecutively. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the type and rate of adverse events between both approaches.

METHODS: Patients were eligible if they underwent a CA and an EPS in a combined approach or in a time interval of at most 2 months. In all patients, clinical adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS: A total of 1184 patients were included. CA and EPS were performed in a combined procedure (comb) in 492 patients, whereas they were performed consecutively in 692 patients (cons). The acute major complication rate was 0.67%, showing no differences between both groups. In the comb 6.9% and in the cons 6.6% of vascular complications were observed (p = 0.20). The rates of AV fistula and hematoma needing transfusion showed a significantly higher rate in the cons group (p = 0.018 and p = 0.045, respectively). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, age was a significant predictor for groin complications. After propensity matching, AV fistula occurred significantly more often in the cons group (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION: Overall, serious adverse events were rare and there were no differences between the combined approach of EPS and CA and the consecutive approach; however, the occurrence of AV fistula and groin hematoma needing transfusion occurred significantly less in the combined procedure group. Therefore, a combined approach is preferable to a consecutive one.