The last resort during complex retrograde percutaneous coronary chronic total occlusion intervention: Extraplaque intracoronary lithotripsy to externally crush a heavy calcified occluded stent.

Chronic total occlusions (CTO) due to in-stent restenosis represent a challenging lesion subset for percutaneous coronary intervention in particular when associated with coronary calcification. Sometimes CTO lesions require antegrade or retrograde dissection-re-entry techniques with extraplaque dilation. Recently intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) emerged as a therapeutic option for the treatment of severely calcified coronary lesions but its role in extraplaque dilation is not described. In this report, we present a case of retrograde complex percutaneous coronary chronic total occlusion revascularization accomplished by the use of extraplaque IVL necessary to externally crush a heavy calcified previous implanted stent.

Acute kidney injury and multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions in chronic renal disease: the AMICI study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) often have multivessel coronary artery disease and the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of AKI in patients with CKD who underwent single vessel PCI versus multivessel PCI. METHODS: We retrospectively screened all PCI performed from January 2011 to December 2017 and we included all the procedures performed in patients with a baseline glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. PCI were divided in two groups according to the treatment of a single vessel (mono group) or multivessel PCI (multi group). The multi group was also divided in two subgroups according to the modality of PCI: multivessel PCI performed in one procedure (multi-single session group) or in multiple staged procedures (multi-staged group). RESULTS: From a total of 4517 PCI screened, 848 PCI were included, 530 in the mono group and 318 in the multi group. The global rate of AKI was around 15% without significant differences between the mono and the multi group (15.5% in the mono and 14.8% in the multi group, P=0.786). In the multi group, the risk of AKI was significantly higher in the Single session sub-group (21.4%) compared to the staged sub-group (11.2%, P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CKD, the risk of AKI did not differ in patients who underwent single vessel versus multivessel PCI, but multivessel PCI should be performed in multiple staged procedures rather than in a single session.

Vascular access and radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary procedures.

In the cardiology community, the use of transradial access for percutaneous coronary procedures is progressively increasing all around the world overtaking the use of transfemoral access. The advantages of the transradial access are based on a significant reduction in bleeding and vascular events compared to the femoral access and on a reduction in mortality in the setting of acute coronary syndromes. However, in recent years a slight but significant increase in radiation exposure for patients and operators associated with the radial approach has been detected, increasing concerns about possible long term increased stochastic risk. In particular interventional cardiologists are among physicians performing interventional procedures using X-rays, those exposed to the highest radiation dose during their activity and this exposure is not without possible long-term clinical consequences in term of deterministic and stochastic effects. All the operators should be aware of these risks and manage to reduce their radiation exposure. In this review we analysed the differences in term of radiation exposure comparing the radial and the femoral access for percutaneous coronary procedures. Then, we discussed the possible clinical consequences of these differences and finally we showed the available tools aimed to reduce the operator radiation exposure. In particular the use of adjunctive protective drapes placed on the patient might reduce operator radiation exposure in up to 81% of the dose.

Extended Protective Shield Under Table to Reduce Operator Radiation Dose in Percutaneous Coronary Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Different tools and devices are effective to reduce operator radiation exposure at thorax level during percutaneous coronary procedures, but the operator radiation dose received at pelvic region still remains high. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of under-the-table adjunctive shields to reduce operator radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary procedures Methods and Results: The EXTRA-RAD study (Extended Protective Shield Under Table to Reduce Operator Radiation Dose in Percutaneous Coronary Procedures) is a prospective, single-center, randomized study. Patients who underwent transradial coronary procedures were randomized into 2 groups: group 1 (standard arrangement) and group 2 (adjunctive anti-rx shield under the angiographic table). In group 2, a further randomization was performed to compare 2 different under-the-table shields (a small curtain and a drape). A total of 205 procedures (122 diagnostic coronary angiographies and 83 percutaneous coronary interventions) performed in 157 patients by 4 different operators were included without significant differences in clinical and procedural characteristics between groups. The use of adjunctive shields was associated with lower radiation dose compared with no shield at pelvic region (42 µSv [14-98] in group 1, 13 µSv [5-27] in group 2; P<0.0001) and also at thorax level (4 µSv [1-13] in group 1, 2 µSv [1-4] in group 2; P=0.001). The reduction in dose was observed in all the operators. No significant differences were observed in pelvic dose using the 2 different shields ( P=0.183). CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjunctive anti-rx shields under the angiographic table during transradial coronary procedures is associated with a significant lower radiation dose to operators at pelvic and thorax level. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03259126.

Staff radiation dose during percutaneous coronary procedures: Role of adjunctive protective drapes.

BACKGROUND: The use of adjunctive protective drapes placed on the patient protects the operating physician from scatter radiation during percutaneous coronary procedures (PCP). No data are available on the effect of these drapes for staff members' radio-protection. PURPOSE: To evaluate staff radiation exposure during PCP and the effect of adjunctive protective drapes on dose reduction. METHODS: The RADIANT study (NCT01974453) is a prospective, observational study evaluating operator radiation exposure during PCP using electronic dosimeter. In a sub-group of procedures all the staff members (II operator, nurse circulator and technologist) were also equipped with a dedicated electronic dosimeter. RESULTS: From a total of 2028 procedures included in the RADIANT study, staff members' doses were available for 122 procedures (67 coronarography and 55 percutaneous coronary interventions). Median fluoroscopy time was 306 s (Interquartile range 155-526 s) and the dose area product (DAP) was 18.0 Gy*cm2 (10-35.5 Gy*cm2). The radiation exposure was highest for the operating physician (6.7 µSv) and progressively lower for the nurse circulator (1.8 µSv), the II operator (1 µSv) and the technologist (0.7 µSv, p < 0.001). Protective pelvic drapes were used in 43 procedures and associated with a lower radiation exposure for all staff members (14 µSv vs 2.2 µSv for operating physician, p < 0.001, 1.7 µSv vs 0.49 µSv for II operator, p < 0.001, 2.16 µSv vs 0.93 µSv for nurse circulator, p = 0.02 and 0.85 µSv vs 0.39 µSv for technologist, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjunctive protective drapes is effective in reducing radiation protection for all staff members during PCP.

Operator Pelvic Radiation Exposure During Percutaneous Coronary Procedures.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate operator pelvic radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary procedures. BACKGROUND: During percutaneous coronary procedures, the operator's pelvic region is close to the x-ray source and is probably exposed to more radiation than the operator's thorax. However, no data are available on the pelvic radiation exposure of interventional cardiologists. METHODS: The RADIANT study (NCT01974453) is a prospective, single-center, observational study evaluating operator radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary procedures using electronic dosimeters placed at thorax level. In the last period of the study enrollment, a single operator was also equipped with an adjunctive electronic dedicated dosimeter to evaluate pelvic radiation exposure. RESULTS: From a total of 2028 procedures included in the RADIANT study, operator pelvic doses were available for 138 procedures (68 right radial, 55 left radial, and 15 transfemoral). Median fluoroscopy time was 226 sec (interquartile range [IQR], 117-407 sec) and the dose-area product (DAP) was 15.3 Gy•cm² (IQR, 9.3-27.8 Gy•cm²). Radiation dose at pelvic region was significantly higher (40.1 µSv; IQR, 22.7-76.3 µSv) compared to thorax dose (5.6 µSv; IQR, 1.5-12 µSv; P<.001) even after normalization by DAP (2.98 µSv/Gy•cm² [IQR, 1.6-4.6 µSv/Gy•cm²] at pelvic vs 0.33 µSv/Gy•cm² [IQR, 0.11-0.81 µSv/Gy•cm²] at thorax level; P<.001). No significant differences were observed comparing pelvic dose in right radial (42 µSv), left radial (39 µSv), or femoral access (40 µSv; P=.43). CONCLUSIONS: Operator radiation exposure to the pelvic region during percutaneous coronary procedures is significantly higher compared to thorax radiation dose independently of the vascular access site employed.

Meta-Analysis of Head-to-Head Comparison of Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Adenosine for the Assessment of Fractional Flow Reserve.

Intravenous (IV) infusion of adenosine represents the gold standard for measuring fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, IV adenosine is more expensive and time-consuming compared with intracoronary (IC) boluses of adenosine. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing IC with IV adenosine for FFR assessment in the same coronary lesions. We searched for studies comparing IC with IV adenosine and reporting absolute FFR values or rate of abnormal FFR for both routes. Prespecified subgroup analysis was performed to appraise studies using low-dose (<100 µg) or high-dose IC adenosine (≥100 µg). We retrieved 11 studies amounting to 587 patients and 621 lesions. Six studies evaluated low-dose IC boluses (15 to 80 µg) and 5 studies high-dose boluses (120 to 600 µg). Absolute FFR values were slightly, yet significantly lower with IV adenosine compared with IC adenosine (mean difference 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00 to 0.03, p = 0.02). This difference, however, did not translate into a significant difference in the rate of abnormal FFR between IC and IV adenosine (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.13, p = 0.57); moreover, no statistically significant difference was observed between low-dose and high-dose IC adenosine subgroups. Adverse events were less frequent with IC adenosine compared with IV adenosine (risk ratio 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.43, p <0.001). In conclusion, IC administration of adenosine, although inducing a slightly lower amount of hyperemia compared with IV infusion of adenosine, yields a similar diagnostic accuracy in identifying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis and is better tolerated by the patients.

Determinants of operator radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary procedures.

BACKGROUND: Radiation exposure is an important issue for interventional cardiologists that is often underevaluated. Our aim was to evaluate determinants of operator radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary procedures. METHODS: The RADIANT (NCT01974453) is a prospective, single-center observational study involving 4 expert operators and 2 fellows performing percutaneous coronary procedures. The operator radiation dose was evaluated using dedicated electronic dosimeters in 2,028 procedures: 1,897 transradial access (TRA; 1,120 right and 777 left TRA) and 131 transfemoral access (TFA). RESULTS: In the whole population, operator radiation dose at the thorax did not differ between TFA (9µSv [interquartile range 5-18µSv]) and TRA (9µSv [4-21µSv]), but after propensity score matching analysis, TFA showed lower dose (9µSv [5-18µSv]) compared with TRA (17µSv [9-28µSv], P<.001). In the whole transradial group, left TRA (5µSv [2-12µSv]) was associated with significant lower operator dose compared with right TRA (13µSv [6-26µSv], P<.001).The use of adjunctive protective pelvic drapes was significantly associated with lower radiation doses compared with procedures performed without drapes (P<.001). Among the operators, an inverse relation between height and dose was observed. Finally, left projections and the use of angiographic systems not dedicated for coronary and high frame rates were all associated with a significant higher operator radiation exposure. CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume center for transradial procedures, TFA is associated with lower operator radiation dose compared with TRA. The use of adjunctive anti-rx drapes seems a valuable tool to reduce the higher operator radiation exposure associated with TRA.

Radiation dose absorbed by operators during transradial percutaneous coronary procedures comparing different protective drapes: the RADIATION study.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare different radiation protection drapes in terms of radiation dose absorbed by operators during right or left transradial procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients who underwent transradial coronary procedures were randomised initially into four groups: Group 1 (no drapes), Group 2 (drape on patient's arm), Group 3 (pelvic drape), Group 4 (combined arm and pelvic drapes). Subsequently, each group was further randomised to right or left radial access. The primary endpoint was the operator radiation dose at the thorax. A total of 452 procedures were included. The use of drapes was associated with a lower radiation dose compared to no drapes (8.6 µSv [4.1-17.9] Group 1, 5.8 µSv [3.4-13] Group 2, 3.6 µSv [2.1-6.9] Group 3, 3.7 µSv [1.9-10.3] Group 4, p<0.001). Among radiation protection drapes groups the radiation dose was significantly lower in Groups 3 and 4 compared to Group 2 (p<0.008). Compared to Group 1, the dose in Group 2 was significantly lower only in right radial procedures (p<0.008) whereas in Groups 3 and 4 the dose was significantly lower in both radial accesses (p<0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The use of radiation protection drapes during transradial coronary procedures is associated with a significantly lower radiation dose to operators, with the pelvic drape more effective than the use of a single arm drape.

Comparison Between Radial Approach and Femoral Approach With Vascular Closure Devices on the Occurrence of Access-Site Complications and Periprocedural Bleeding After Percutaneous Coronary Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Periprocedural bleedings, often related to vascular access site, represent an important drawback of percutaneous coronary procedures and are associated with worse outcomes. Radial access (RA) and, potentially, femoral access (FA) with vascular closure device (VCD) are useful strategies in order to mitigate periprocedural bleedings; nevertheless, their relative efficacy is largely undetermined. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of available studies comparing the efficacy of RA and FA with hemostasis by VCD (FA + VCD) on the reduction of access-site complications and/or periprocedural bleedings. METHODS: Published studies reporting outcomes on access-site complications and periprocedural bleedings were included in the analysis. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by random-effects model and were used as summary statistics. RESULTS: We included in the analysis 13 studies, of which 5 were randomized. Access-site complications were reported by 11 studies, amounting to 157,031 patients (77,713 in the RA group and 79,318 in the FA + VCD group), whereas periprocedural bleedings were reported by 12 studies, amounting to 600,196 patients (137,277 in the RA group and 462,919 in the FA + VCD group). RA was associated with a significant reduction in access-site complications (OR, 0.25; 95% CI ,0.21-0.31; P<.001) and periprocedural bleedings (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34-0.48; P<.001) as compared with FA + VCD; the results were consistent among randomized and observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that RA is superior to FA + VCD in the reduction of access-site complications and periprocedural bleedings.

Meta-Analysis of Radial Versus Femoral Artery Approach for Coronary Procedures in Patients With Previous Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Cardiac catheterization through the radial artery approach (RA) has been shown to significantly reduce access-site complications compared with the femoral artery approach (FA) in many clinical settings. However, in the subset of patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), optimal vascular access site for coronary angiography and intervention is still a matter of debate. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of available studies comparing RA with FA in patients with previous CABG. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; weighted mean differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes, whereas odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Summary statistics were calculated by random-effects model using Review Manager 5.3 software. The meta-analysis included 1 randomized and 8 nonrandomized studies, with a total of 2,763 patients. Compared with FA, RA required similar procedural time (mean difference 3.24 minutes, 95% CI -1.76 to 8.25, p = 0.20), fluoroscopy time (mean difference 0.62 minutes, 95% CI -0.83 to 2.07, p = 0.40), and contrast volume (mean difference -2.58 ml, 95% CI -18.36 to 13.20, p = 0.75) and was associated with similar rate of procedural failure (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.80, p = 0.46), higher rate of crossover to another vascular access (OR 7.0, 95% CI 2.74 to 17.87, p <0.0001), and lower risk of access-site complications (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.80, p = 0.006). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggests that in patients with previous CABG undergoing coronary procedures, RA, compared with FA, is associated with increased crossover rate but may reduce access-site complications.

Radial artery occlusion and hand strength after percutaneous coronary procedures: Results of the HANGAR study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate muscle force of the hand, thumb, and forefinger in patients with prolonged radial occlusion after transradial percutaneous coronary procedures. BACKGROUND: There are no data on hand strength and function in patients with prolonged radial occlusion after percutaneous coronary procedures. METHODS: Elective patients with chronic stable angina undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures were evaluated the day before the procedure for radial artery patency, Allen test, hand grip, and thumb and forefinger pinch tests. The same measures were performed the day after the procedure and at follow-up. At follow-up, patients were divided in two groups according to the radial patency (group 1) or occlusion (group 2). RESULTS: Of the 99 patients included in the study, 90 patients had a patent radial artery (group 1), and nine (9.1%) patients had an occluded artery (group 2). At baseline, there were no significant differences in hand grip test between the two groups (42 ± 11 kg in group 1 and 41 ± 17 kg in group 2, P = 0.74). In both groups, after the procedure, the hand grip test values was significantly reduced compared with baseline values (40 ± 11 kg in group 1, P < 0.0001 and 37 ± 17 kg in group 2, P = 0.007). Finally, at follow-up, in both groups, the hand grip test values returned to baseline values. Thumb and forefinger pinch tests did not show significant differences after the procedure and at follow-up, compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Radial artery occlusion after percutaneous coronary procedures was not associated with a reduction in hand and finger strength.

Reproducibility of serial optical coherence tomography measurements for lumen area and plaque components in humans (The CLI-VAR [Centro per la Lotta Contro l'Infarto-variability] II study).

Frequency-domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT) is a promising intracoronary imaging technique to study atherosclerosis. Indeed, its unprecedented spatial resolution allows the assessment of fibrous cap thickness, lipid pool and features of plaque vulnerability. Aim of this study was to determine the reproducibility of the in vivo FD-OCT measurements of lumen area and plaque components in serial studies. Twenty-six patients undergoing FD-OCT assessment of intermediate lesion during coronary angiography were included in this study. FD-OCT pullbacks were acquired twice from the same coronary segment at interval of 5 min without additional intervention and analyzed off-line at an independent imaging core laboratory. Lumen diameter (LD), lumen area (LA), fibrous cap (FC) thickness and lipid pool (LP) arc extension measurements were compared in 440 matched frames. Both the per-segment and per-frame analyses showed excellent correlation coefficients for the inter-pullback comparisons for all parameters explored (R > 0.95 and p < 0.001 in all cases). Accordingly, the Bland-Altman estimates of bias showed non-significant differences in the inter-pullback comparisons at all levels. Per-frame analysis showed a slightly variations of LA in 45.8% of cases with changes greater than 2% likely related to different phases of cardiac cycle. Nevertheless, nor FC thickness or circumferential arc of LP were affected by LA changes during serial FD-OCT acquisition. This study showed an excellent reproducibility of lumen and plaque component measurements obtained with FD-OCT in vivo. Thus, this intracoronary imaging technique could be used to assess atherosclerosis progression and describe accurate plaque evolution in repeated serial studies.

Randomized evaluation of intralesion versus intracoronary abciximab and aspiration thrombectomy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: The COCTAIL II trial.

BACKGROUND: Thrombus burden and distal embolization are predictive of no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We sought to compare the efficacy of pharmacological and catheter-based strategies for thrombus in patients with STEMI and high atherothrombotic burden. METHODS: Between January 2012 and December 2013, 128 STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI at 5 centers were randomly assigned in a 2 × 2 factorial design to intracoronary (IC) abciximab bolus (via the guide catheter) versus intralesion (IL) abciximab bolus, each with versus without aspiration thrombectomy (AT). Study end points were residual intrastent atherothrombotic burden, defined as the number of cross-sections with residual tissue area >10% as assessed by optical coherence tomography, and indices of angiographic and myocardial reperfusion. RESULTS: Residual intrastent atherothrombotic burden did not significantly differ with IL versus IC abciximab (median [interquartile range] 6.0 [1-15] vs 6.0 [2-11], P = .806) and with AT versus no aspiration (6.0 [1-13] vs 6.0 [2-12], P = .775). Intralesion abciximab administration was associated with improved angiographic myocardial reperfusion in terms of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow (3 [3-3] vs 3 [2-3], P = .040), corrected TIMI frame count (12 ± 5 vs 17 ± 16, P = .021), and myocardial blush grade (3 [2-3] vs 3 [2-3], P = .035). In particular, IL abciximab was associated with higher occurrence of final TIMI 3 flow (90% vs 73.8%, P = .032) and myocardial blush grade 3 (71.6% vs 52.4%, P = .039). Conversely, AT had no significant effect on indices of angiographic or myocardial reperfusion. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI and high thrombotic burden, neither IL versus IC abciximab nor AT versus no aspiration reduced postprocedure intrastent atherothrombotic burden in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. However, IL abciximab improved indices of angiographic and myocardial reperfusion compared to IC abciximab, benefits not apparent with AT.

Operator radiation exposure during right or left transradial coronary angiography: A phantom study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed a possible lower radiation dose absorbed by operators comparing LRA and RRA for percutaneous coronary procedures. The reasons of this lower radiation dose are not well known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiation dose absorbed by operators comparing left with right radial access (LRA and RRA respectively) during a simulated diagnostic coronary angiography using a phantom. METHODS: A coronary angiography examination was simulated on a phantom by 5 operators using eight projections with 5 seconds fluoroscopy each. Each operator was equipped with 4 electronic dosimeters placed at thorax, at left wrist, at left head and at hip level. Radiation doses were expressed in picosievert and normalized by dose area product. RESULTS: LRA compared to RRA was associated with a significant lower operator dose at wrist (36pSv/cGYcm(2) [IQR 18-59pSv/cGYcm(2)] and 48pSv/cGYcm(2) [IQR 22-148pSv/cGYcm(2)] respectively, p=0.01) and thorax (3pSv/cGYcm(2) [IQR 2-5pSv/cGYcm(2)] and 10pSv/cGYcm(2) [6-23pSv/cGYcm(2)] respectively, p<0.001) but with a significant higher radiation dose at hip level (102pSv/cGYcm(2) [IQR 44-199pSv/cGYcm(2)] and 67pSv/cGYcm(2) [IQR 39-132pSv/cGYcm(2)] respectively, p=0.02). Conversely the radiation dose at left side of the head did not show significant differences between the two approaches. CONCLUSIONS: In this phantom study simulating a diagnostic coronarography the use of LRA compared to RRA was associated with a significant lower radiation dose at wrist and thorax but with an increased dose at hip level. SUMMARY: To evaluate the radiation dose absorbed by operators comparing left with right radial access (LRA and RRA respectively) we simulated a diagnostic coronary angiography using a dedicated phantom. Operators were equipped with dedicated electronic dosimeters at wrist, hip, head and thorax level. LRA compared to RRA was associated with a significant lower operator dose at wrist and thorax but with a significant higher radiation dose at hip level whereas the radiation dose at left side of the head did not show significant differences between the two approaches.

Patient radiation exposure in right versus left trans-radial approach for coronary procedures.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare radiation exposure, assessed by dose-area product (DAP), in right trans-radial approach (RR) versus left trans-radial approach (LR) for coronary procedures. BACKGROUND: In LR the catheter course is more similar to trans-femoral approach, thus allowing an easier negotiation of coronary ostia which, in turn, might translate into reduced fluoroscopy time (FT) and radiation exposure as compared to RR. METHODS: We retrospectively selected diagnostic and interventional procedures (PCI) performed by RR or LR at our center from May 2009 to May 2014. We only included in the analysis the procedures in which DAP values were available. RESULTS: We analyzed 1464 procedures, 1175 of which performed by RR (80.3%) and 289 by LR (19.7%). Median DAP values were significantly higher in RR as compared to LR for diagnostic and interventional procedures (4482 vs. 3540 cGy.cm(2) and 11523 vs. 10086 cGy.cm(2), respectively; p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in FT and in contrast volume (CV). In the propensity-matched cohort, consisting of 269 procedures for each group, no significant differences between LR and RR were observed in median DAP values for both diagnostic and interventional procedures (3990 vs. 3542 cGy.cm(2) and 9964 vs. 10216 cGy.cm(2), respectively; p = ns); FT and CV were also similar. At multiple linear regression analysis laterality of trans-radial approach was not associated with DAP. CONCLUSIONS: In an experienced trans-radial center LR is not associated with a reduction in radiation exposure, FT or CV as compared to RR.

Heparins crossover in percutaneous coronary interventions: a real issue with increasing rate of transradial procedures?

AIMS: Current guidelines give a class III recommendation to the intraprocedural use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients pretreated with enoxaparin. The aim of our study was to evaluate bleeding complications in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed using intraprocedural crossover of heparin therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all PCIs performed at two Italian hospitals since January 2011 to December 2013. After a propensity-matched analysis, patients were divided into two groups (with a ratio 1 : 2) according to intraprocedural crossover of heparins (from enoxaparin to UFH) (Group 1) or intraprocedural UFH alone (Group 2). The primary end-point was a haemoglobin drop of at least 3 g/dl within 48 h after the procedure. RESULTS: During the 3 years analysed, 3224 patients underwent PCI, and after the propensity analysis, 309 patients were considered eligible for our study: 104 patients in Group 1 (69 ±â€Š12 years, 78% men) and 205 patients in Group 2 (69 ±â€Š13 years, 80% men, P = NS). There were no significant differences between the two groups for BMI, periprocedural use of antiplatelet therapy, baseline haemoglobin haematocrit or platelets levels. The primary end-point did not differ between the two groups (2.9% in Group 1 and 3.4% in Group 2, P = 0.550). Also, nadir of haematocrit or haemoglobin levels did not differ between the two groups. Finally, in hospital, major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events did not differ between the two groups (1.9% in Group 1 and 3.9% in Group 2, P = 0.50). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis of a large PCI database, the 'heparins crossover' during PCI was not associated with increased bleeding risk.

Transradial access and radiation exposure in diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures.

BACKGROUND: Although transradial access (TRA) is being increasingly used in interventional cardiology, there are concerns about a possible increase in radiation exposure (RE) as compared to transfemoral access (TFA). METHODS: In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare RE during coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to the vascular access route (TRA vs TFA). We included all procedures performed in our laboratory, in which RE data (dose area product, cGy•cm²) were available, from May 2009 to May 2013. Both multiple linear regression analysis and propensity score matching were performed in order to compare RE between TRA and TFA after adjusting for clinical and procedural confounders. RESULTS: DAP values were available for 1396 procedures; TRA rate was 82.6%. TRA patients were younger, less frequently female, and had higher body mass index as compared to TFA patients; the rates of PCI, ad hoc PCI, bypass angiography, thrombus aspiration, and primary angioplasty, as well as the number of stents implanted, fluoroscopy time, and contrast dose were significantly higher in TFA. Median DAP value was significantly higher in TFA than in TRA (9670 cGy•cm² vs 7635 cGy•cm²; P<.01). After adjusting for clinical and procedural confounders, vascular access was not found to be an independent predictor of RE at multiple regression analysis; this was also confirmed by stratified comparison of DAP values by quintiles of propensity score. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for clinical and procedural confounders, TRA was not found to be associated with increased RE as compared to TFA in an experienced TRA center.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in nonagenarians: six-month outcomes from a single-center registry.

Little is known about the efficacy and medium-term outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in very old patients. We evaluated in-hospital and 6-month outcomes in a retrospective cohort of nonagenarian patients presenting at our hospital with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and treated by primary PCI from January 2003 to May 2012. During this period, primary PCI was performed in 1598 consecutive patients; twenty-seven patients (age, 92.5 ± 2.5 years) were enrolled in the study. Four patients (15%) were in advanced Killip class at presentation. STEMI location was anterior in 44%. Patients received aspirin, 300 mg clopidogrel loading dose, and heparin. Abciximab was given to 41% of patients. Coronary angiography showed multivessel disease in 52% of patients. Pain-to-balloon and door-to-balloon times were 375.0 ± 410.2 minutes and 107.3 ± 47.6 minutes, respectively. Intra-aortic balloon pump was implanted in 1 patient. An average of 1.3 ± 0.7 stents (95% bare-metal stents) were implanted per patient. Procedural success rate, defined as Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade ≥ 2 and residual stenosis <20%, was 89%. Hospital mortality was 18.5%. TIMI major bleeding and acute renal failure, defined as an absolute increase of 0.5 mg/dL serum creatinine, occurred in 7% and 22% of patients, respectively. Overall 6-month survival rate was 67%. Our data suggest that primary PCI can be performed in nonagenarian patients with high success rate and with an acceptable bleeding risk, even when aggressive antithrombotic drugs, such as glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, are given.