Francesco Summaria

Elevated Levels of C-Reactive Protein at Discharge in Patients With Unstable Angina Predict Recurrent Instability

BACKGROUND In a group of patients admitted for unstable angina, we investigated whether C-reactive protein (CRP) plasma levels remain elevated at discharge and whether persistent elevation is associated with recurrence of instability. METHODS AND RESULTS We measured plasma levels of CRP, serum amyloid A protein (SAA), fibrinogen, total cholesterol, and Helicobacter pylori and Chlamydia pneumoniae antibody titers in 53 patients admitted to our coronary care unit for Braunwald class IIIB unstable angina. Blood samples were taken on admission, at discharge, and after 3 months. Patients were followed for 1 year. At discharge, CRP was elevated (>3 mg/L) in 49% of patients; of these, 42% had elevated levels on admission and at 3 months. Only 15% of patients with discharge levels of CRP <3 mg/L but 69% of those with elevated CRP (P<0.001) were readmitted because of recurrence of instability or new myocardial infarction. New phases of instability occurred in 13% of patients in the lower tertile of CRP (</=2.5 mg/L), in 42% of those in the intermediate tertile (2.6 to 8.6 mg/L), and in 67% of those in the upper tertile (>/=8.7 mg/L, P<0.001). The prognostic value of SAA was similar to that of CRP; that of fibrinogen was not significant. Chlamydia pneumoniae but not Helicobacter pylori antibody titers significantly correlated with CRP plasma levels. CONCLUSIONS In unstable angina, CRP may remain elevated for at >/=3 months after the waning of symptoms and is associated with recurrent instability. Elevation of acute-phase reactants in unstable angina could represent a hallmark of subclinical persistent instability or of susceptibility to recurrent instability and, at least in some patients, could be related to chronic Chlamydia pneumoniae infection.

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).

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.

Angiographic and clinical outcome of invasively managed patients with thrombosed coronary bare metal or drug-eluting stents: the OPTIMIST study

AIMS Stent thrombosis (ST) is a major complication of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). An invasive management by re-PCI is the commonly adopted treatment for ST, but data on outcome are limited. METHODS AND RESULTS We performed a 2-year multicentre registry enrolling consecutive patients with angiographically confirmed ST undergoing PCI. The primary angiographic endpoint was optimal angiographic reperfusion (TIMI 3 + blush grade 2 or 3). The primary clinical endpoints were death and major adverse coronary and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) at 6 months. A total of 110 patients underwent 117 urgent PCI during the study. Patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) thrombosis, compared with those with bare metal stent (BMS) thrombosis, exhibited a higher rate of late or very late presentation and of anti-platelet therapy withdrawal. Optimal angiographic reperfusion was obtained in 64% of the patients. Death and MACCE rates at 6 months were 17 and 30%, respectively. Clinical outcome was similar for BMS and DES thrombosis. Very late ST, implantation of stent during PCI for ST, and failure to achieve optimal angiographic reperfusion were the independent predictors of 6-month mortality. CONCLUSION DES and BMS thromboses have different clinical features, but a similar poor outcome. Indeed, PCI for ST is associated with a low rate of reperfusion and to a high rate of death and MACCE, calling for action in order to prevent its occurrence and to improve its management.

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.

Percutaneous antegrade transarterial treatment of iatrogenic radial arteriovenous fistula.

Site of access vascular complications is infrequent after transradial interventions. We report the case of a 66-year-old man referred to our hospital because of right forearm swelling, oedema and pain with functional forearm disability, 1 year after a transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The diagnostic and procedural issues are discussed. This is the first description of a successful and well-tolerated radial arteriovenous fistula (AVF) treatment by means of percutaneous antegrade approach with the use of a short introducer and a biocompatible covered stent.

Radial versus femoral approach comparison in percutaneous coronary intervention with intraaortic balloon pump support: The RADIAL PUMP UP Registry

BACKGROUND The role of intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in high-risk acute patients remains debated. Device-related complications and the more complex patient management could explain such lack of clinical benefit. We aimed to assess the impact of transradial versus transfemoral access for PCI requiring IABP support on vascular complications and clinical outcome. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 321 consecutive patients receiving IABP support during transfemoral (n = 209) or transradial (n = 112) PCI. Thirty-day net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (composite of postprocedural bleeding, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stroke) were the primary end point, with access-related bleeding and hospital stay as secondary end points. RESULTS Cardiogenic shock and hemodynamic instability were the most common indications for IABP support. Cumulative 30-day NACE rate was 50.2%, whereas an access site-related bleeding occurred in 14.3%. Patients undergoing transfemoral PCI had a higher unadjusted rate of NACEs when compared with the transradial group (57.4% vs 36.6%, P < .01), mainly due more access-related bleedings (18.7% vs 6.3%, P < .01). Such increased risk of NACEs was confirmed after propensity score adjustment (hazard ratio 0.57 [0.4-0.9], P = .007), whereas hospital stay appeared comparable in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS In this observational registry, high-risk patients undergoing PCI and requiring IABP support appeared to have fewer NACEs if transradial access was used instead of transfemoral, mainly due to fewer access-related bleedings. Given the inherent limitations of this retrospective work, including the inability to adjust for unknown confounders, further controlled studies are warranted to confirm or refute these findings.