ABSTRACT
Introducción y objetivos: Existen pocos estudios que comparen los accesos por la radial izquierda (ARI) y por la radial derecha en intervenciones coronarias percutáneas (ICP) en población general y practicadas por cirujanos con diferentes grados de experiencia en intervencionismo. El objetivo de nuestro estudio es comparar la seguridad y el beneficio clínico con cada acceso en pacientes no seleccionados con síndrome coronario agudo (SCA) y angina estable (AE). Métodos: Para evitar los posibles sesgos de un estudio no aleatorizado, se usó la puntuación de propensión para comparar ambos accesos radiales. Se recogieron datos de 18.716 pares con AE y 46.241 con SCA sometidos a ICP con implante de stent entre 2014 y 2017, en 151 centros terciarios con cardiología intervencionista en Polonia (registro nacional de Polonia [ORPKI]). Resultados: No se encontraron diferencias en cuanto a mortalidad y complicaciones periprocedimiento en AE. El ARI se asoció con mayores dosis de radiación independientemente de la presentación clínica (AE, 1.067,0±947,10 frente a 1.007,4±983,5 mGy; p=0,001; SCA, 1.212,7±1.005,5 frente a 1.053,5±1.029,7 mGy; p=0,001). En los pacientes con SCA, el ARI se asoció con mayor cantidad de contraste (174,2±75,4 frente a 167,2±72,1ml; p=0,001). Además, en los pacientes con SCA y ARI, las complicaciones periprocedimiento como disección coronaria (el 0,16 frente al 0,09%; p=0,008), fenómeno de no reflow (el 0,65 frente al 0,49%; p=0,005) y hemorragia en el sitio de punción (el 0,09 frente al 0,05%; p=0,04) resultaron más frecuentes. No hubo diferencias en la mortalidad entre los 2 grupos (p=0,90). Conclusiones: Los resultados que se presentan podrían estar en relación con una menor experiencia en el ARI. Ambos accesos son seguros en los pacientes con AE, pero el ARI se asoció con una mayor frecuencia de complicaciones periprocedimiento de ICP en el SCA (AU)
Introduction and objectives: There is a paucity of data comparing the left radial approach (LRA) and right radial approach (RRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in all-comers populations and performed by operators with different experience levels. Thus, we sought to compare the safety and clinical outcomes of the RRA and LRA during PCI in real-world patients with either stable angina or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: To overcome the possible impact of the nonrandomized design, a propensity score was calculated to compare the 2 radial approaches. The study group comprised 18 716 matched pairs with stable angina and 46 241 with ACS treated with PCI and stent implantation between 2014 and 2017 in 151 tertiary invasive cardiology centers in Poland (the ORPKI Polish National Registry). Results: The rates of death and periprocedural complications were similar for the RRA and LRA in stable angina patients. A higher radiation dose was observed with PCI via the LRA in both clinical presentations (stable angina: 1067.0±947.1 mGy vs 1007.4±983.5 mGy, P=.001; ACS: 1212.7±1005.5 mGy vs 1053.5±1029.7 mGy, P=.001). More contrast was used in LRA procedures but only in ACS patients (174.2±75.4mL vs 167.2±72.1mL, P=.001). Furthermore, periprocedural complications such as coronary artery dissection (0.16% vs 0.09%, P=.008), no-reflow phenomenon (0.65% vs 0.49%, P=.005), and puncture site bleeding (0.09% vs 0.05%, P=.04) were more frequently observed with the LRA in ACS patients. There was no difference in mortality between the 2 groups (P=.90). Conclusions: Our finding of poorer outcomes with the LRA may be related to lower operator experience with this approach. While both the LRA and RRA are safe in the setting of stable angina, the LRA was associated with a higher rate of periprocedural complications during PCI in ACS patients (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods , Acute Coronary Syndrome/therapy , Angina, Stable/therapy , Radial Artery , Treatment Outcome , Patient SafetyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Altered metabolism of eicosanoids is a characteristic finding in aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD). Bronchial challenge with lysyl-aspirin can be used as a confirmatory diagnostic test for this clinical condition. Induced sputum allows to measure mediators of asthmatic inflammation in bronchial secretions. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of inhaled lysyl-aspirin on sputum supernatant concentration of eicosanoids during the bronchial challenge test. Subjects with asthma hypersensitive to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were compared with aspirin-tolerant asthmatic controls. METHODS: Induced sputum was collected before and following bronchial challenge with lysyl-aspirin. Sputum differential cell count and sputum supernatant concentrations of selected lipoxygenases products: 5-,12-,15-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid, cysteinyl leukotrienes, leukotriene B4 , 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2 , and prostaglandins E2 , D2 , and F2α and their metabolites, were measured using validated methods of chromatography-mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Aspirin precipitated bronchoconstriction in all AERD subjects, but in none of the aspirin-tolerant asthmatics. Phenotypes of asthma based on the sputum cytology did not differ between the groups. Baseline sputum eosinophilia correlated with a higher leukotriene D4 (LTD4 ) and leukotriene E4 (LTE4 ) concentrations. LTC4 , PGE2 , and 11-dehydro-TXB2 did not differ between the groups, but levels of LTD4 , LTE4 , and PGD2 were significantly higher in AERD group. Following the challenge, LTD4 and LTE4 increased, while PGE2 and LTB4 decreased in AERD subjects only. CONCLUSIONS: During the bronchial challenge, decrease in PGE2 and its metabolite is accompanied by a surge in bronchoconstrictory cysteinyl leukotrienes produced at the expense of LTB4 in AERD subjects. Bronchial PGE2 inhibition in AERD seems specific and sensitive to a low dose of aspirin.