ABSTRACT
Background Aortic intramural hematoma due to coronary artery dissection is a rare and serious complication during percutaneous coronary intervention. Case Presentation A 78-year-old female patient was admitted for diagnostic coronarography in the context of stable angina. The coronarography showed an asymmetric and significate calcification in the ostium of the right coronary requiring Rotablator (Boston Scientific) procedure complicated by iatrogenic ascending aortic hematoma. After surgical advice, a conservative approach was decided with total hematoma resorption and recovery 1 week later. Conclusion With stable patient, conservative treatment may be suitable after aortic hematoma due to coronary dissection.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Literature suggests that radial access is associated with higher radiation doses than femoral access. AIMS: To compare patient radiation exposure during coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with radial versus femoral access. METHODS: RAY'ACT is a nationwide, multicentre, French survey evaluating patient radiation in interventional cardiology. Variables of patient exposure from 21,675 CAs and 17,109 PCIs performed at 44 centres during 2010 were analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: Radial access was used in 71% of CAs and 69% of PCIs. Although median fluoroscopy times were longer for radial versus femoral access (CA, 3.8 vs 3.5minutes [P<0.001]; PCI, 10.4 vs 10.1minutes [P=0.001]), the Kerma-area product (KAP) was lower with radial access (CA, 26.8 vs 28.1Gy·cm2; PCI, 55.6 vs 59.4Gy·cm2; both P=0.001). Differences in KAP remained significant in the multivariable analysis (P<0.01), and in a propensity score-matched analysis (P=0.01). A significant interaction was found between KAP and the percentage of procedures with radial access by centre (P<0.001). KAP was higher by radial versus femoral access in low-radial-volume centres, and lower in high-radial-volume centres. Radiation protection techniques, such as the use of low frame rates (7.5 frame/s), were used more frequently in high-radial-volume radial centres. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre study, radial access was associated with lower radiation doses to patient than femoral access in high-radial-volume centres. Provided that radioprotection methods are implemented, radial access could be associated with lower patient radiation exposure.
