Insights into retroperitoneal hemorrhage management: result from a tertiary cardiovascular center prospective cohort

Abstract Background Although rare, retroperitoneal hemorrhage (RPH) during percutaneous cardiovascular interventions is still potentially fatal, poses a critical challenge, often necessitating swift and precise management strategies. Its management is still controversial, and available recommendations are mostly based on expert opinion, and not updated according to recent advancement in the field of interventional cardiology. Purpose To present the rate, clinical characteristics and modern management of patients complicating with RPH in a large tertiary cardiovascular center Method We collected prospectively all consecutive RPH events encountered in the catheterization laboratories of a large tertiary cardiovascular center during 2014-2022. Procedural data from all the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed in the same time period, were retrieved from electronic hospital records (EHR). Results Among 89,361 percutaneous cardiovascular diagnostic or therapeutic procedures performed on 69596 patients, 52 (0.058%) episodes (patients) of RPH, (mean age of 56.37±16.84 years with female sex predominance of 36 (69.23%)). Also 2 (3.8%) patients died due to RPH. Non-contrast abdominopelvic CT scan was the most common primary imaging modality for RPH diagnosis, followed by DSA angiography. Of note, 13 (25 %) of patients returned directly to catheterization laboratory for RPH evaluation. Thirty-one (59.6%) patients were ultimately treated conservatively and no patient treated surgically. Structural and peripheral procedures were more prone to RPH. Still a median time of 7.5 hours was needed for RPH diagnosis. Contralateral access was the dominant approach for treating RPH, and although balloon tamponade was used in 11 (52.4 %) patients, 17 (80.9 %) patients were treated ultimately with covered stents; deep femoral and internal iliac arteries were covered in 1 (5.9%) and 2 (11.8%) patients, respectively. Patients treated endovascularly for RPH had higher acute kidney injury and longer hospital stays. Further comprehensive analysis regarding the potential risk factors of RPH are pending. Conclusion Our preliminary analysis from a large tertiary cardiovascular center database, showed RPH is still rare, with acceptable mortality rate of 3.83%. Our data showed the necessity of more precise probability assessment tools to improve the diagnostic time.