Alessandro Sciahbasi

Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome The RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) Study

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess whether transradial access for ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing early invasive treatment is associated with better outcome compared with conventional transfemoral access. BACKGROUND In patients with acute coronary syndrome, bleeding is a significant predictor of worse outcome. Access site complications represent a significant source of bleeding for those patients undergoing revascularization, especially when femoral access is used. METHODS The RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) was a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study. Between January 2009 and July 2011, 1,001 acute ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing primary/rescue percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to the radial (500) or femoral (501) approach at 4 high-volume centers. The primary endpoint was the 30-day rate of net adverse clinical events (NACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and bleeding). Individual components of NACEs and length of hospital stay were secondary endpoints. RESULTS The primary endpoint of 30-day NACEs occurred in 68 patients (13.6%) in the radial arm and 105 patients (21.0%) in the femoral arm (p = 0.003). In particular, compared with femoral, radial access was associated with significantly lower rates of cardiac mortality (5.2% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.020), bleeding (7.8% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.026), and shorter hospital stay (5 days first to third quartile range, 4 to 7 days] vs. 6 [range, 5 to 8 days]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Radial access in patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome is associated with significant clinical benefits, in terms of both lower morbidity and cardiac mortality. Thus, it should become the recommended approach in these patients, provided adequate operator and center expertise is present. (Radial Versus Femoral Investigation in ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome [RIFLE-STEACS]; NCT01420614).

Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: the RIFLE STEACS Study

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess whether transradial access for ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing early invasive treatment is associated with better outcome compared with conventional transfemoral access. BACKGROUND In patients with acute coronary syndrome, bleeding is a significant predictor of worse outcome. Access site complications represent a significant source of bleeding for those patients undergoing revascularization, especially when femoral access is used. METHODS The RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) was a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study. Between January 2009 and July 2011, 1,001 acute ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing primary/rescue percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to the radial (500) or femoral (501) approach at 4 high-volume centers. The primary endpoint was the 30-day rate of net adverse clinical events (NACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and bleeding). Individual components of NACEs and length of hospital stay were secondary endpoints. RESULTS The primary endpoint of 30-day NACEs occurred in 68 patients (13.6%) in the radial arm and 105 patients (21.0%) in the femoral arm (p = 0.003). In particular, compared with femoral, radial access was associated with significantly lower rates of cardiac mortality (5.2% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.020), bleeding (7.8% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.026), and shorter hospital stay (5 days first to third quartile range, 4 to 7 days] vs. 6 [range, 5 to 8 days]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Radial access in patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome is associated with significant clinical benefits, in terms of both lower morbidity and cardiac mortality. Thus, it should become the recommended approach in these patients, provided adequate operator and center expertise is present. (Radial Versus Femoral Investigation in ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome [RIFLE-STEACS]; NCT01420614).

Arterial access-site-related outcomes of patients undergoing invasive coronary procedures for acute coronary syndromes (from the ComPaRison of Early Invasive and Conservative Treatment in Patients With Non-ST-ElevatiOn Acute Coronary Syndromes [PRESTO-ACS] Vascular Substudy).

Transradial access (TRA) decreased bleeding after coronary interventions compared with femoral access (FA). However, no large study focused on arterial access-related outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes, although procedure-related bleeding significantly impaired prognosis. The aim was to evaluate access site-related outcomes of patients who underwent an invasive coronary procedure in the PRESTO-ACS Study. The cumulative primary study end point was death or reinfarction during hospitalization and at 1-year follow-up. Secondary end points were in-hospital bleeding and a net clinical outcome (combination of the primary end point and bleeding). Of 1,170 patients studied, 863 underwent a percutaneous coronary procedure using FA, and 307, using TRA. Compared with FA, TRA was associated with higher glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use (52% vs 34%; p <0.0001). The in-hospital primary end point was similar between TRA (2.6%) and FA (2.9%; p = 0.79). However, TRA was associated with a significant decrease in bleeding (0.7% vs 2.4%; p = 0.05) and a nonsignificant decrease in net clinical outcome (3.3% vs 4.6%; p = 0.30). At 1-year follow-up, the TRA group had a statistically significant decrease in death or reinfarction (4.9% vs 8.3%; p = 0.05), bleeding (0.7% vs 2.7%; p = 0.03), and net clinical outcome (5.5% vs 9.9%; p = 0.02). In conclusion, in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, use of TRA was associated with lower bleeding complications and identified patients with better long-term outcomes.

Transradial approach (left vs right) and procedural times during percutaneous coronary procedures: TALENT study

BACKGROUND most of the studies assessing transradial approach for coronary angiography (CA) have been performed through right radial approach (RRA). Our aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of left radial approach (LRA) compared with RRA for coronary procedures. METHODS from January 2009 to December 2009, in 2 hospitals, 1,540 patients were randomized to RRA (770 patients) or LRA (770 patients) for percutaneous coronary procedures. The primary end point was fluoroscopy time for CA and for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) evaluated independently. Prespecified subgroup analyses according to patient age and operator experience were planned. RESULTS in 1,467 patients (732 RRA and 735 LRA), a CA (diagnostic group) was performed, and in 688 (344 each for RRA and LRA), a PCI. In the diagnostic group, LRA was associated with significantly lower fluoroscopy time (149 seconds, interquartile range [IQR] 95-270 seconds) and dose area product fluoroscopy (10.7 Gy cm(2), IQR 6-20.5 Gy cm(2)) compared with the RRA (168 seconds, IQR 110-277 seconds, P = .0025 and 12.1 Gy cm(2), IQR 7-23.8 Gy cm(2), P = .004, respectively). In the PCI group, there were no significant differences in fluoroscopy time (614 seconds, IQR 367-1,087 seconds for LRA and 695 seconds, IQR 415-1,235 seconds, P = .087 for RRA) and dose area product fluoroscopy (53.7 Gy cm(2), IQR 29-101 Gy cm(2) for LRA and 63.1 Gy cm(2), IQR 31-119 Gy cm(2), P = .17 for RRA). According to subgroup analyses, the differences between LRA and RRA were confined to older patients (≥ 70 years old) and to operators in training. CONCLUSIONS left radial approach for coronary diagnostic procedures is associated with lower fluoroscopy time and radiation dose adsorbed by patients compared with the RRA, particularly in older patients and for operators in training.

Transradial access compared with femoral puncture closure devices in percutaneous coronary procedures

BACKGROUND Transradial access (RA) is associated with less complications and is preferred by patients. Vascular closure devices (VCDs) may improve discomfort and may reduce complications associated with transfemoral access. Aim was to evaluate complications and discomfort associated with percutaneous coronary procedures employing RA or VCDs. METHODS We enrolled 1492 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary procedures with RA (604 procedures), femoral approach with manual compression (MC) (276 procedures), or with either Angioseal (311 procedures) or Starclose (301 procedures) closure device. Discomfort was assessed using procedure-specific questions. Major vascular complications were evaluated during hospitalization. RESULTS RA significantly reduced major complications (0.7%) compared to either the MC (2.9%, p=0.03) or the VCDs (Starclose 2.7%, Angioseal 3.9%, p=0.003). There were no significant differences in major complications between MC and either the Angioseal or the Starclose. At multivariate analysis the RA was predictor of reduced complications (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08-0.85, p=0.03 vs MC, and OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.57, p=0.003 vs VCDs). The RA was associated with a significant reduction in procedural discomfort with 44.2% of patients referring no discomfort (p<0.0001). Starclose and Angioseal were better tolerated than MC (27.8%, 29.3% and 8.9% patients respectively without discomfort, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS RA is associated with a significant reduction in major vascular complications compared to femoral approach even if two different VCDs are employed. VCDs are better tolerated than MC but the RA was associated with the lowest discomfort.

Operator Radiation Exposure During Percutaneous Coronary Procedures Through the Left or Right Radial Approach The TALENT Dosimetric Substudy

Background— Transradial percutaneous coronary procedures may be effectively performed through the right radial approach (RRA) or the left radial approach (LRA), but data on radiation dose absorbed by operators comparing the two approaches are lacking. The aim of the present study was to evaluate radiation dose absorbed by operators during coronary procedures through the RRA and LRA. Methods and Results— Three operators were equipped with 5 different dosimeters (left wrist, shoulder, thorax outside the lead apron, thorax under the lead apron, and thyroid) during RRA or LRA for coronary procedures. Each month, the dosimeters were analyzed to determine the radiation dose absorbed. From February to December 2009, 390 patients were randomly assigned to the RRA (185 patients; age, 66±11 years) or the LRA (185 patients; age, 66±11 years). There were no significant differences in fluoroscopy time (for RRA, 369 seconds; interquartile range, 134 to 857 seconds; for LRA, 362 seconds; interquartile range, 142 to 885 seconds; P=0.58) between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in monthly radiation dose at the thorax (0.85±0.46 mSv for RRA and 1.12±0.78 mSv for LRA, P=0.33), at the thyroid (0.36±0.2 mSv for RRA and 0.34±0.3 mSv for LRA, P=0.87), and at the shoulder (0.73±0.44 mSv for RRA and 0.94±0.42 mSv for LRA, P=0.27). The dose at the wrist was significantly higher for the RRA (2.44±1.12 mSv) compared with the LRA (1±0.8 mSv, P=0.002). In both radial approaches, the thoracic radiation dose under the lead apron was undetectable. Conclusions— Compared with RRA, LRA for coronary procedures is associated with similar radiation dose for operators at the body, shoulder, or thyroid level, with a possible significant advantage at the wrist. The cumulative radiation dose for both approaches is well under to the annual dose-equivalent limit. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00282646.

Low-grade exercise enhances platelet aggregability in patients with obstructive coronary disease independently of myocardial ischemia☆

Moderate and strenuous exercise is known to enhance platelet aggregability in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), but the effect of low-grade exercise is not known. We assessed shear-induced platelet aggregability before and after mild exercise (less than or equal to stage III of the modified Bruce protocol) in 27 patients with documented CAD who were receiving aspirin and in 12 subjects without CAD (controls). Ex vivo platelet aggregability was assessed in flowing whole blood as the time to occlude a collagen and adenosine diphosphate-coated ring; shorter times indicated greater aggregability. Aggregability, plasma von Willebrand factor (vWF) antigen, platelet and white cell counts, and hematocrit were measured at baseline, immediately after exercise (peak), and at 30 and 180 minutes after exercise. Exercise of similar workloads induced myocardial ischemia in 14 patients (group 1), but not in the other 13 (group 2) nor in controls. Both patient groups showed a reduction in aggregation time at peak exercise compared with baseline (group 1: 84+/-17 seconds at peak vs 96+/-22 seconds at baseline; group 2: 84+/-20 seconds at peak vs 99+/-20 seconds at baseline; p <0.03 for both comparisons), with a return to baseline values within 180 minutes. No significant variation occurred in controls (89+/-18 seconds at peak vs 85+/-21 second at baseline). Changes in vWF antigen did not differ significantly among groups. Aggregation times did not correlate with hematocrit or platelet and white cell counts. Thus, even low-grade exercise transiently enhances whole blood platelet aggregability in patients with obstructive CAD, but not in controls. The effect is independent of myocardial ischemia, occurs despite aspirin, and is likely dependent on hemodynamic factors interacting with coronary obstructions or dysfunctional endothelium.

Operator Radiation Exposure During Percutaneous Coronary Procedures Through the Left or Right Radial Approach

Background— Transradial percutaneous coronary procedures may be effectively performed through the right radial approach (RRA) or the left radial approach (LRA), but data on radiation dose absorbed by operators comparing the two approaches are lacking. The aim of the present study was to evaluate radiation dose absorbed by operators during coronary procedures through the RRA and LRA. Methods and Results— Three operators were equipped with 5 different dosimeters (left wrist, shoulder, thorax outside the lead apron, thorax under the lead apron, and thyroid) during RRA or LRA for coronary procedures. Each month, the dosimeters were analyzed to determine the radiation dose absorbed. From February to December 2009, 390 patients were randomly assigned to the RRA (185 patients; age, 66±11 years) or the LRA (185 patients; age, 66±11 years). There were no significant differences in fluoroscopy time (for RRA, 369 seconds; interquartile range, 134 to 857 seconds; for LRA, 362 seconds; interquartile range, 142 to 885 seconds; P=0.58) between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in monthly radiation dose at the thorax (0.85±0.46 mSv for RRA and 1.12±0.78 mSv for LRA, P=0.33), at the thyroid (0.36±0.2 mSv for RRA and 0.34±0.3 mSv for LRA, P=0.87), and at the shoulder (0.73±0.44 mSv for RRA and 0.94±0.42 mSv for LRA, P=0.27). The dose at the wrist was significantly higher for the RRA (2.44±1.12 mSv) compared with the LRA (1±0.8 mSv, P=0.002). In both radial approaches, the thoracic radiation dose under the lead apron was undetectable. Conclusions— Compared with RRA, LRA for coronary procedures is associated with similar radiation dose for operators at the body, shoulder, or thyroid level, with a possible significant advantage at the wrist. The cumulative radiation dose for both approaches is well under to the annual dose-equivalent limit. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00282646.

Right versus left radial artery access for coronary procedures: An international collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis including 5 randomized trials and 3210 patients

BACKGROUND Radial artery access is a mainstay in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease. However, there is uncertainty on the comparison of right versus left radial access for coronary procedures. We thus undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing right versus left radial access for coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures. METHODS Pertinent studies were searched in CENTRAL, Google Scholar, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Scopus, together with international conference proceedings. Randomized trials comparing right versus left radial (or ulnar) access for coronary diagnostic or interventional procedures were included. Risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were computed to generate point estimates (95% confidence intervals). RESULTS A total of 5 trials (3210 patients) were included. No overall significant differences were found comparing right versus left radial access in terms of procedural time (WMD=0.99 [-0.53; 2.51]min, p=0.20), contrast use (WMD=1.71 [-1.32; 4.74]mL, p=0.27), fluoroscopy time (WMD=-35.79 [-3.54; 75.12]s, p=0.07) or any major complication (RR=2.00 [0.75; 5.31], p=0.49). However, right radial access was fraught with a significantly higher risk of failure leading to cross-over to femoral access (RR=1.65 [1.18; 2.30], p=0.003) in comparison to left radial access. CONCLUSIONS Right and left radial accesses appear largely similar in their overall procedural and clinical performance during transradial diagnostic or interventional procedures. Nonetheless, left radial access can be recommended especially during the learning curve phase to reduce femoral cross-overs.

Optimal timing of an invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND A routine invasive strategy is recommended for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). However, optimal timing of invasive strategy is less clearly defined. Individual clinical trials were underpowered to detect a mortality benefit; we therefore did a meta-analysis to assess the effect of timing on mortality. METHODS We identified randomised controlled trials comparing an early versus a delayed invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. We included trials that reported all-cause mortality at least 30 days after in-hospital randomisation and for which the trial investigators agreed to collaborate (ie, providing individual patient data or standardised tabulated data). We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) using random-effects models. This meta-analysis is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42015018988). FINDINGS We included eight trials (n=5324 patients) with a median follow-up of 180 days (IQR 180-360). Overall, there was no significant mortality reduction in the early invasive group compared with the delayed invasive group HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·64-1·03; p=0·0879). In pre-specified analyses of high-risk patients, we found lower mortality with an early invasive strategy in patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers at baseline (HR 0·761, 95% CI 0·581-0·996), diabetes (0·67, 0·45-0·99), a GRACE risk score more than 140 (0·70, 0·52-0·95), and aged 75 years older (0·65, 0·46-0·93), although tests for interaction were inconclusive. INTERPRETATION An early invasive strategy does not reduce mortality compared with a delayed invasive strategy in all patients with NSTE-ACS. However, an early invasive strategy might reduce mortality in high-risk patients. FUNDING None.