Meta-Analysis Comparing Distal Radial Artery Approach Versus Traditional for Coronary Procedures.

Distal radial artery access (DRA) is recommended as the preferred approach over the traditional proximal radial artery access (TRA) for coronary procedures; however, there are limited randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the 2. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of all RCTs from inception to July 26, 2021, that compared DRA versus TRA in patients who underwent coronary procedures. The statistical analysis was performed using a random effect model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 5 RCTs were included with a total of 1,005 patients. A pooled analysis of the data showed that the rate of successful cannulation was similar between the 2 arms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.07, p = 0.16, I2 = 94%). The rate of radial artery spasm significantly favored the DRA arm as compared with TRA (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75, p = 0.0007, I2 = 0%). Significantly more patients from the DRA arm required alternative arterial access. Moreover, the DRA group had an insignificantly decreased rates of radial artery occlusion (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.20, p = 0.08, I2 = 46%) and early discharge after transradial stenting of coronary arteries access-site hematomas (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.149, p = 0.22, I2 = 0%). The mean time for hemostasis was significantly shorter in the DRA arm (mean difference -6.64, 95% CI -10.37 to -2.90, p = 0.0005, I2 = 88%). In conclusion, DRA should be considered as a viable, effective, and safe arterial access method for patients who underwent coronary procedures.

Rare Cardiac Papillary Fibroelastoma: Right Atrial, Non-Valvular, Large, Symptomatic With Pulmonary Embolism.

INTRODUCTION: Primary cardiac tumors are rarely seen in the general population and only a subset are classified as cardiac papillary fibroelastoma. CASE PRESENTATION: A 59-year-old female that presented for unresponsiveness and cardiac arrest required 4 rounds of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and intubation. Laboratory investigations showed uncompensated respiratory acidosis, hyperkalemia, and elevated troponins. A chest computed tomography angiogram illustrated an acute right pulmonary embolism and a right atrial filling defect. Furthermore, an echocardiogram demonstrated a normal ejection fraction and a large, pedunculated, mobile, and non-valvular echodensity that was attached to the right atrium endocardium. Therefore, the patient was started on a heparin infusion and catheter-directed thrombolysis; however, the mass persisted. A surgical excision was performed, and a 40 mm was removed. The patient was diagnosed with a papillary fibroelastoma based on the clinical symptoms, imaging, and histological findings. CONCLUSION: This patient's papillary fibroelastoma had multiple rare features including right atrial origin, large size, non-valvular location, and developed symptoms. Although this disease can be initially fatal, the patients typically have a favorable prognosis after a successful excision.

CYP2C19 pharmacogenetics versus standard of care dosing for selecting antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of personalized genotype-guided selection of antiplatelet therapy versus standard of care in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel is the most frequently used P2Y12 receptor antagonist in patients with coronary artery disease. However, genetic variations of clopidogrel are associated with inter-individual response variability which could limit its efficacy. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating genotype-guided therapy versus standard of care in patients undergoing stent implantation. Aggregated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included 6 RCTs with a total of 2,371 patients. When compared with standard of care, the use of genotype-guided therapy did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.35-1.27; P = 0.22). However, MACE was significantly reduced in the subset of trials which enrolled only acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (P < 0.01). In addition, there was a significant reduction in myocardial infarction in the genotype-guided group (RR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.28-0.70; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%). Other clinical outcomes were not significantly different: cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.27-1.74; P = 0.42), stroke (RR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.23-1.65; P = 0.34), stent thrombosis (RR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.13-1.06; P = 0.06), and bleeding (RR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.43-1.06; P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing stent implantation, MACE with genotype-guided therapy was not significantly reduced; however, there was a signal towards reduction of MACE in ACS patients, as well as a lower rate of MI, though this will require further confirmation in adequately powered trials.