Guillaume Plourde

Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Transradial access for cardiac catheterisation results in lower bleeding and vascular complications than the traditional transfemoral access route. However, the increased radiation exposure potentially associated with transradial access is a possible drawback of this method. Whether transradial access is associated with a clinically significant increase in radiation exposure that outweighs its benefits is unclear. Our aim was therefore to compare radiation exposure between transradial access and transfemoral access for diagnostic coronary angiograms and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). METHODS We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the scientific literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases with relevant terms, and cross-referencing relevant articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared radiation parameters in relation to access site, published from Jan 1, 1989, to June 3, 2014. Three investigators independently sorted the potentially relevant studies, and two others extracted data. We focused on the primary radiation outcomes of fluoroscopy time and kerma-area product, and used meta-regression to assess the changes over time. Secondary outcomes were operator radiation exposure and procedural time. We used both fixed-effects and random-effects models with inverse variance weighting for the main analyses, and we did confirmatory analyses for observational studies. FINDINGS Of 1252 records identified, we obtained data from 24 published RCTs for 19 328 patients. Our primary analyses showed that transradial access was associated with a small but significant increase in fluoroscopy time for diagnostic coronary angiograms (weighted mean difference [WMD], fixed effect: 1·04 min, 95% CI 0·84-1·24; p<0·0001) and PCI (1·15 min, 95% CI 0·96-1·33; p<0·0001), compared with transfemoral access. Transradial access was also associated with higher kerma-area product for diagnostic coronary angiograms (WMD, fixed effect: 1·72 Gy·cm(2), 95% CI -0·10 to 3·55; p=0·06), and significantly higher kerma-area product for PCI (0·55 Gy·cm(2), 95% CI 0·08-1·02; p=0·02). Mean operator radiation doses for PCI with basic protection were 107 μSv (SD 110) with transradial access and 74 μSv (68) with transfemoral access; with supplementary protection, the doses decreased to 21 μSv (17) with transradial access and 46 μSv (9) with transfemoral. Meta-regression analysis showed that the overall difference in fluoroscopy time between the two procedures has decreased significantly by 75% over the past 20 years from 2 min in 1996 to about 30 s in 2014 (p<0·0001). In observational studies, differences and effect sizes remained consistent with RCTs. INTERPRETATION Transradial access was associated with a small but significant increase in radiation exposure in both diagnostic and interventional procedures compared with transfemoral access. Since differences in radiation exposure narrow over time, the clinical significance of this small increase is uncertain and is unlikely to outweigh the clinical benefits of transradial access. FUNDING None.

Successive transradial access for coronary procedures: Experience of Quebec Heart-Lung Institute

BACKGROUND Transradial approach (TRA) for cardiac catheterizations and interventions improves clinical outcomes compared with transfemoral access, and its use is increasing worldwide. However, there are limited data on successive use of same artery for repeat procedures. METHODS Between May 2010 and May 2011, all consecutive patients undergoing a repeat TRA procedure (≥2) were retrospectively identified. Success rates and reasons for failure to use ipsilateral radial artery for repeat access were identified. RESULTS A total of 519 patients underwent 1,420 procedures. In 480 patients (92%), right radial artery was used as initial access, and left radial artery, in 39 patients. All patients underwent ≥2 procedures; 218 patients, ≥3; 87 patients, ≥4; 39 patients, ≥5; 19 patients, ≥6; 11 patients, ≥7; and 5 patients, ≥8 procedures. Two patients had, respectively, 9 and 10 procedures. The success rate for second attempt was 93%, 81% for third, and declining to 60% for ≥8. Linear regression analysis estimated a 5% failure rate for each repeat attempt (R(2) = 0.87, P = .007). The main reason for failure was related to clinical radial artery occlusion (RAO) including absent or faint pulse, poor oximetry, and failed puncture. All patients with clinical RAO were asymptomatic. By multivariate analysis, female gender (odds ratio [OR] 3.08, 95% CI 1.78-5.39, P < .0001), prior coronary artery bypass graft (OR 5.26, 95% CI 2.67-10.42, P < .0001), and repeat radial access (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.70-2.76, P < .0001) were independent predictors of radial access failure. CONCLUSION Successive TRA is both feasible and safe in most cases for up to 10 procedures. However, failure rate for TRA increases with successive procedures, primarily due to clinical RAO. Strategies to minimize the risks of chronic clinical RAO and allow repeat use of ipsilateral radial artery need to be further defined.

Early and late outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention by radial or femoral approach in patients presenting in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND Although radial approach is increasingly used in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) including in acute myocardial infarction (MI), patients with cardiogenic shock have been excluded from comparisons with femoral approach. The aim of our study was to compare clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary PCI with cardiogenic shock by radial and femoral approach. METHODS AND RESULTS From 2,663 patients presenting with ST-elevation MI in 2 large volume radial centers, we identified 197 patients (7.4%) with signs of cardiogenic shock immediately before undergoing primary PCI. Radial approach was used in 55% of cases when at least 1 radial artery was weakly palpable, either spontaneously or after intravenous noradrenaline bolus. Patients in the radial group were older (69 ± 12 vs 64 ± 12 years, P = .010), had less diabetes (13% vs 26%, P = .028), and required less often intubation prior PCI (42% vs 66%, P = .0006) or intraaortic balloon pump (36% vs 55%, P = .0096). Mortality at 1 year was 44% in the radial group and 64% in the femoral group (P = .0044). Independent predictors of late mortality included radial approach (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.42-0.98, P = .041), the use of glycoprotein IIb-IIIa receptor inhibitors (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.96, P = .032), baseline creatinine ≥110 μmol/L (HR 3.34, 95% CI 2.20-5.12, P < .0001), initial glycemia >200 mg/dL (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.34-3.11, P = .0008), and age >65 years (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.18-2.79, P = .006). CONCLUSION Radial approach was safe and feasible in more than half of the patients with ST-elevation MI and cardiogenic shock treated by primary PCI. After adjustment for baseline and procedural characteristics, radial approach remained associated with better survival. However, prognosis of patients undergoing primary PCI in cardiogenic shock remains poor.

Benefit of Bivalirudin Versus Heparin After Transradial and Transfemoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Bivalirudin, a direct thrombin inhibitor, has been shown to reduce major bleeding and provide a better safety profile compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) through transfemoral access. Data pertaining to the clinical benefit of bivalirudin compared to UFH monotherapy in patients undergoing transradial PCI are lacking. The present study sought to compare the in-hospital net clinical adverse events, including death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and bleeding, for these 2 antithrombotic regimens for all patients at a tertiary care, high-volume radial center. From April 2009 to February 2011, all patients treated with bivalirudin were matched by access site to those receiving UFH. The patients in the bivalirudin group (n = 125) were older (72 ± 13 years vs 66 ± 11 years; p <0.0001), more often had chronic kidney disease (51% vs 30%; p = 0.0012), and more often underwent primary PCI (30% vs 14%, p <0.0037) than the UFH-treated patients (n = 125). A radial approach was used in 71% of both groups. The baseline bleeding risk according to Mehrans score was similar in both groups (14 ± 9 vs 15 ± 8, p = 0.48). In-hospital mortality was 2% in both groups (p = 1.00). No difference in net clinical adverse events or ischemic or bleeding complications was detected between the 2 groups. Bivalirudin reduced both ischemic and bleeding events in femoral-treated patients, but no such clinical benefit was observed in the radial-treated patients. In conclusion, as periprocedural PCI bleeding avoidance strategies have become paramount to optimize the clinical benefit, the interaction between bivalirudin and radial approach deserves additional investigation.

Efficacy and safety of preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump use in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) can be used prior to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in high-risk patients. Whether this technique remains safe and effective in contemporary practice is controversial. OBJECTIVE We have completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies to evaluate the safety and benefits of IABP prior to CABG surgery. METHODS We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, with cross-referencing of relevant articles for studies assessing the impact of IABP prior to and after isolated CABG. Two investigators independently sorted the potentially relevant studies, and three extracted data. The assessed outcomes included in-hospital and 30-day mortality, IABP-related complications and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay. RESULTS From 1977 to 2015 we included 11 randomized controlled trials (n=1293) (RCTs) and 22 observational studies, including a total of 46,067 patients. Analyses from RCTs suggested that IABP prior to CABG was associated with a significant reduction in hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.20; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09-0.44; P<0.0001) and 30-day mortality compared to no preoperative IABP (OR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.25-0.76; P=0.003). IABP prior to CABG was also associated with shorter intensive care unit (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.47day; 95% CI: -1.82 to -1.12day; P<0.00001) and hospital length of stay (WMD -3.25days; 95% CI: -5.18 to -1.33days; P=0.0009). However, there were significant bias and limitations among included studies. Furthermore, results for similar outcomes from observational studies remained inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS In contemporary practice, evidence showing clinical benefit for preoperative IABP in high-risk patients remains limited and requires further validation in an appropriately sized multicenter randomized trial.

Effect on door-to-balloon time of immediate transradial percutaneous coronary intervention on culprit lesion in ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared to diagnostic angiography followed by primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Door-to-balloon (DTB) time is an important metric in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to optimize clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of immediate PCI on culprit lesions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions versus diagnostic angiography followed by PCI on DTB times and procedural data at a high-volume tertiary care radial center. All patients who underwent primary PCI <12 hours after symptom onset were studied. Procedural data and all-cause mortality were assessed in all patients. The primary outcome was DTB time. From January 2006 to June 2011, 1,900 patients were included and divided into 2 groups: 562 patients (30%) underwent primary PCI followed by contralateral diagnostic angiography, and 1,338 patients (70%) underwent diagnostic angiography before primary PCI. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics. Left anterior descending coronary artery-related ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions were more often found in patients who underwent PCI first (54% vs 34%, p <0.0001). Overall, there was a reduction of 8 minutes in DTB time between patients who underwent PCI first and those who underwent angiography first (32 minutes [interquartile range 24 to 52] vs 40 minutes [interquartile range 30 to 69], respectively, p <0.0001). After adjustment, immediate PCI remained an independent predictor of DTB time ≤90 minutes (odds ratio 2.42, 95% confidence interval 1.70 to 3.52, p <0.0001). There were no differences in early and late clinical outcomes. In conclusion, a strategy of transradial direct PCI of the infarct-related artery in selected patients before complete coronary angiography was associated with a benefit of 8 minutes in DTB time. Further study is required to determine whether this strategy can favorably affect clinical outcomes.

Early and late mortality after repair or replacement in mitral valve prolapse and functional ischemic mitral regurgitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is the most prevalent valvular pathology in the USA affecting 1.7% of the population [1]. The two predominant forms of MR in the Western World are mitral valve prolapse (MVP) and ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) [2]. The optimal surgical strategy is still debated in both entities. Previous data comparing mitral valve repair (MVr) and replacement (MVR) approaches are based on a heterogeneous population in terms of LV function and baseline characteristics. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the relevant studies and to compare the mortality between the 2 surgical treatment strategies in patients with MVP and IMR. Using PubMed database, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library we performed literature searches and thereafter individually reviewed relevant articles, extracted relevant data and entered in Review Manager software ([RevMan] version 5.1.20 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark)).

Comparison of radiation exposure during transradial diagnostic coronary angiography with single- or multi-catheters approach.

To compare radiation exposure during transradial diagnostic coronary angiography (DCA) using standard single‐ or multi‐catheters with different shapes.

Low rate fluoroscopy in cardiac catheterization: Toward a new standard?: Low Rate Fluoroscopyin Cardiac Catheterization

mendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 60. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1990. 6. Hirshfeld JW Jr, Balter S, Brinker JA, et al. ACCF/AHA/HRS/ SCAI clinical competence statement on physician knowledge to optimize patient safety and image quality in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:2259–2282. 7. Chambers C, Fetterly K, Holzer R, et al. Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011;77:546–556. 8. Fetterly KA, Mathew V, Lennon R, Bell MR, Holmes DR, Rihal CS. Radiation dose reduction in the invasive cardiovascular laboratory. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5:866–873. 9. Wassef AWA, Hiebert B, Ravandi A, Ducas J, Minhas K, Vo M, Kass M, Parmar G, Hussain F. Radiation dose reduction in the cardiac catheterization laboratory utilizing a novel protocol. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2014;7:550–557. 10. Abdelaal E, Plourde G, MacHaalany J, Bertrand OF, et al. Effectiveness of low rate fluoroscopy at reducing operator and patient radiation dose during transradial coronary angiography and interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2014;7:567–574. 11. Pyne CT, Gadey G, Jeon C, Piemonte T, Waxman S, Resnic F. Effect of reduction of the pulse rates of fluoroscopy and CINEacquisition on X-ray dose and angiographic image quality during invasive cardiovascular procedures. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:441–446. 12. Agarwal S, Parashar A, Ellis SG, Heupler FA, Lau E, Tuzcu EM, Kapadia SR. Measures to reduce radiation in a modern cardiac catheterization laboratory. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:447–455. 13. Geijer H, Beckman KW, Andersson T, Persliden J. Radiation dose optimization in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).II. Clinical Evaluation. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2813–2819. 14. Abbott JD. Controlling radiation exposure in interventional cardiology. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:425–428. 15. Fetterly KA, Lennon RJ, Bell MR, Holmes DR, Riha CS. Clinical determinants of radiation dose in percutaneous coronary interventional procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol Interv 2011;4:336–343. 16. Gray B, Klimis H, Inam S, Ariyathna N, Kumar S, Baily B, Patel S. Radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization in similar for both femoral and radial approaches. Heart Lung Circ 2015;24:264–269. 17. Plourde G, Pancholy SB, Nolan J, Jolly S, Rao SV, Amhed I, Bangalore S, Patel T, Dahm JS, Bertrand OF. Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2015;386:2192–2203.

Feasibility and Safety of Early Repeat Transradial Access Within 30 Days of Previous Coronary Angiography and Intervention

Transradial approach (TRA) is the default access site for diagnostic angiography and intervention in many centers. Repeat ipsilateral radial artery access late after index procedure has been associated with failures. It is unknown whether early (≤30 days) and very early (<24 hours) repeat radial access is technically feasible and safe. Study population consisted of consecutive patients undergoing repeat (≥2) procedures within 30 days in a high-volume TRA center. Transradial access failure and resulting femoral approach was categorized as primary (no repeat attempt) or secondary (crossover). Timing of repeat access and reasons for failure were recorded. From November 2012 to December 2014, repeat catheterization by TRA was performed twice in 573 of 626 patients (92%) (median delay 4 [2 to 9] days), 3 times in 29 of 38 (76%) patients (median delay 15 [5 to 26] days), and 4 times in 1 patient within 21 days. When repeat catheterization occurred during the first 24 hours following the index procedure, 53% and 75% of patients had second and third procedures using the same ipsilateral radial artery, respectively. Primary radial failure occurred in 5.8% for second attempt and 13% for a third attempt, whereas crossovers were noted in 2.7% and 2.6%, respectively. Main reasons for failed re-access of ipsilateral radial artery were related either to operators reluctance to repeat attempt (primary failure) or to issues with puncture site (crossover). In a high-volume TRA center, patients who required repeat catheterization within 24 hours and within the first 30 days had the same radial artery re-accessed in the majority of cases.