Roberto Patrizi

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).

Major improvement of percutaneous cardiovascular procedure outcomes with radial artery catheterisation: results from the PREVAIL study

Objective: To obtain a “snapshot” view of access-specific percutaneous cardiovascular procedures outcomes in the real world. Design: Multicentre, prospective study performed over a 30-day period. Setting: Nine hospitals with invasive cardiology facilities, reflecting the contemporary state of healthcare. Patients: Unselected consecutive sample of patients undergoing any percutaneous cardiovascular procedure requiring an arterial access. Interventions: Percutaneous cardiovascular procedures by radial or femoral access Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the combined incidence of in-hospital (a) major and minor haemorrhages; (b) peri-procedural stroke; and (c) entry-site vascular complications. The secondary outcome was the combined incidence of in-hospital death and myocardial infarction/reinfarction. For analysis purposes, outcomes were allocated to arterial access-determined study arms on an intention-to treat basis. Multivariable analysis adjusted using propensity score was performed to correct for selection bias related to arterial site. Results: A total of 1052 patients were enrolled: 509 underwent radial access and 543 femoral access. In both groups, 40% underwent a coronary angioplasty. Relative to femoral access, radial access was associated with a lower incidence both of primary (4.2% vs 1.96%, p = 0.03, respectively) and secondary endpoints (3.1% vs 0.6%, p = 0.005, respectively). Multivariate analysis, adjusted for procedural and clinical confounders, confirmed that intention-to-access via the radial route was significantly and independently associated with a decreased risk both of primary (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.84) and secondary endpoints (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62). Conclusions: Our study indicates strikingly better outcomes of percutaneous cardiovascular procedures with radial access versus femoral access in contemporary, real-world clinical settings.

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.

Effects of chronic testosterone administration on myocardial ischemia, lipid metabolism and insulin resistance in elderly male diabetic patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND The evidence of antiatherogenic and vasodilatatory effects of testosterone (T) suggest a possible role of the lack of this hormone in the development and pathophysiology of coronary artery disease (CAD). Aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of oral administration of testosterone undecanoate during a period of three months on serum lipid levels and on the occurrence of anginal attacks and daily ischemic episodes in patients with CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS Eighty seven (87) diabetic male subjects (mean age: 74+/-7 years) with proven CAD were randomized to a 12 week treatment with either T undecanoate (40 mg administered three daily) or placebo (P) in a double blind protocol. Weekly episodes of angina attacks, number of ischemic episodes daily and total ischemic burden on ambulatory ECG Holter were evaluated at baseline and at the end of the study. Serum total cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations were also measured at the same time points. Compared to P, T significantly reduced the number of anginal attacks/weeks of 34% (p<0.05); the silent ischemic episodes of 26% (p<0.05), and the total ischemic burden of 21% (p<0.05) on ambulatory ECG monitoring. After 12 weeks total cholesterol, plasma triglycerides and HOMA index were significantly reduced in the T group compared to P group. CONCLUSIONS Three months administration of T has beneficial effect on serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels in patients with CAD and reduces the number of anginal attacks, and ischemic episodes. These effect may be related to the metabolic and vasoactive properties of the hormone. Further studies are needed in order to assess the long term relevance of these effects.

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.

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.

Comparison of the feasibility and effectiveness of transradial coronary angiography via right versus left radial artery approaches (from the PREVAIL Study)

It remains undefined if transradial coronary angiography from a right or left radial arterial approach differs in real-world practice. To address this issue, we performed a subanalysis of the PREVAIL study. The PREVAIL study was a prospective, multicenter, observational survey of unselected consecutive patients undergoing invasive cardiovascular procedures over a 1-month observation period, specifically aimed at assessing the outcomes of radial approach in the contemporary real world. The choice of arterial approach was left to the discretion of the operator. Prespecified end points of this subanalysis were procedural characteristics. Of 1,052 patients consecutively enrolled, 509 patients underwent transradial catheterization, 304 with a right radial and 205 with a left radial approach. Procedural success rates were similar between the 2 groups. Compared to the left radial group, the right radial group had longer procedure duration (46 ± 29 vs 33 ± 24 minutes, p <0.0001) and fluoroscopy time (765 ± 787 vs 533 ± 502, p <0.0001). At multivariate analysis, including a parsimonious propensity score for the choice of left radial approach, duration of procedure (beta coefficient 11.38, p <0.001) and total dose-area product (beta coefficient 11.38, p <0.001) were independently associated with the choice of the left radial artery approach. The operators proficiency in right/left radial approach did not influence study results. In conclusion, right and left radial approaches are feasible and effective to perform percutaneous procedures. In the contemporary real world, however, the left radial route is associated with shorter procedures and lower radiologic exposure than the right radial approach, independently of an operators proficiency.

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.