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.