Numerical Evaluation of Human Body Near Field Exposure to a Vehicular Antenna for Military Applications.

BACKGROUND: The use of electromagnetic (EM) technologies for military applications is gaining increasing interest to satisfy different operational needs, such as improving battlefield communications or jamming counterpart's signals. This is achieved by the use of high-power EM waves in several frequency bands (e.g., HF, VHF, and UHF). When considering military vehicles, several antennas are present in close proximity to the crew personnel, which are thus potentially exposed to high EM fields. METHODS: A typical exposure scenario was reproduced numerically to evaluate the EM exposure of the human body in the presence of an HF vehicular antenna (2-30 MHz). The antenna was modeled as a monopole connected to a 3D polygonal structure representing the vehicle. Both the EM field levels in the absence and in the presence of the human body and also the specific absorption rate (SAR) values were calculated. The presence of the operator, partially standing outside the vehicle, was simulated with the virtual human body model Duke (Virtual Population, V.3). Several exposure scenarios were considered. The presence of a protective helmet was modeled as well. RESULTS: In the area usually occupied by the personnel, E-field intensity radiated by the antenna can reach values above the limits settled by international safety guidelines. Nevertheless, local SAR values induced inside the human body reached a maximum value of 14 mW/kg, leading to whole-body averaged and 10-g averaged SAR values well below the corresponding limits. CONCLUSION: A complex and realistic near-field exposure scenario of the crew of a military vehicle was simulated. The obtained E-field values radiated in the free space by a HF vehicular antenna may reach values above the safety guidelines reference levels. Such values are not necessarily meaningful for the exposed subject. Indeed, SAR and E-field values induced inside the body remain well below safety limits.

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.

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.

Cocaine and coronary artery diseases: a systematic review of the literature.

Cocaine is associated with important cardiac complications such as sudden death, acute myocarditis, dilated cardiomyopathy, life-threatening arrhythmias, and myocardial ischemia as well as infarction. It is well known that cocaine may induce vasospasm through adrenergic stimulation of the coronary arteries. Moreover, cocaine may promote intracoronary thrombosis, triggered by alterations in the plasma constituents, and platelet aggregation, leading to subsequent myocardial infarction. The long-term use of cocaine may stimulate atherosclerosis, probably through endothelial cell dysfunction. Significant and severe coronary atherosclerosis is common in young chronic cocaine users and there is probably a relationship between the duration and frequency of cocaine use and the extent of coronary disease.

Long term follow-up of "full metal jacket" of de novo coronary lesions with new generation Zotarolimus-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse coronary artery disease treatment still remains a challenge for interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons. There are few data on full metal jacket (FMJ) stenting, especially with new-generation drug-eluting stents. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of FMJ with new-generation Zotarolimus-eluting stents (n-ZES). METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients who underwent FMJ with n-ZES (≥60mm stent length) in eleven Italian interventional centers participating in the Clinical Service® project were included in this analysis. The project population consisted of 120 patients and 122 lesions. Mean age was 67±10years and 95 (79.2%) patients were male. A chronic total occlusion was present in 34 lesions (27.9%). The number of stents implanted per lesion was 2.9±0.8, and the diameter of the stents was 3.0±0.5mm. Predilation and post-dilatation were performed in 107 (87.7%) and 92 (75.4%) patients, respectively. At 41±21month follow-up there were 2 patients with subacute definite stent thrombosis, 6 patients (5.0%) had cardiac death and 5 patients (4.2%) had non-fatal myocardial infarction. Seven patients (5.8%) underwent clinically-driven target lesion revascularization. Fourteen patients (11.7%) had at least one major adverse cardiac event. CONCLUSION: The treatment of diffuse coronary artery disease with FMJ stenting with n-ZES appears to be effective and safe. Late and very-late ST does not seem to be an issue and the rate of restenosis and of major cardiac adverse events after more than 3-year follow-up is rather low.

Percutaneous coronary interventions and antiplatelet therapy in renal transplant recipients.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity following renal transplantation (RT), accounting for 40-50% of all deaths. After renal transplantation, an adverse cardiovascular event occurs in nearly 40% of patients; given the dialysis vintage and the average wait time, the likelihood of receiving coronary revascularization is very high. There is a significant gap in the literature in terms of the outcomes of prophylactic coronary revascularization in renal transplantation candidates. Current guidelines on myocardial revascularization stipulate that renal transplant patients with significant coronary artery disease (CAD) should not be excluded from the potential benefit of revascularization. Compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), however, coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with higher early and 30-day mortality. About one-third of renal transplant patients with CAD have to be treated invasively and so PCI is currently the most popular mode of revascularization in these fragile and compromised patients. A newer generation drug-eluting stent (DES) should be preferred over a bare metal stent (BMS) because of its lower risk of restenosis and improved safety concerns (stent thrombosis) compared with first generation DES and BMS. Among DES, despite no significant differences being reported in terms of efficacy, the newer everolimus and zotarolimus eluting stents should be preferred given the possibility of discontinuing, if necessary, dual antiplatelet therapy before 12 months. Since there is a lack of randomized controlled trials, the current guidelines are inadequate to provide a specifically tailored antiplatelet therapeutic approach for renal transplant patients. At present, clopidogrel is the most used agent, confirming its central role in the therapeutic management of renal transplant patients undergoing PCI. While progress in malignancy-related mortality seems a more distant target, a slow but steady reduction in cardiovascular deaths, improving pharmacological and interventional therapy, is nowadays an achievable medium-term target in renal transplant patients.

Antiplatelet Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

CONTEXT: Coronary artery disease is highly prevalent among patients with end stage renal disease/hemodialysis (ESRD/HD) and coronary percutaneous interventions (PCI) has been increased by nearly 50% over the past decade. After PCI with stent placement, guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), but no specifically tailored pharmacotherapy approach is outlined for this frail population, mostly excluded from large randomized clinical trials (RCTs). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We reviewed current evidences on the use of antiplatelet therapy in patients with ESRD/HD undergoing PCI, focusing on the efficacy and safety of specific agents and their indications for detailed clinical settings. RESULTS: Clinical setting in HD patients is the principal determinant of the type, onset, combination and duration of the DAPT. However, irrespective clinical setting, in addition to aspirin, clopidogrel is currently the most used antiplatelet agent even if no information derived from RCTs are available in ESRD. Due to the large experience acquired in routine clinical practice, the awareness of safety is higher for clopidogrel than newer antiplatelet agents. Because of lack of data, the use of prasugrel and ticagrelor is actually not recommended. However, in case of high ischemic and acceptable bleeding risk, they may be selectively used in ESRD/HD. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation might contribute to delineate the best treatment options for this high risk population.

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.

Closed versus open cell stent for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction: the Closed versus Open Cells stent for High risk percutaneous coronary Interventions in ST-Elevation acute myocardial infarction (COCHISE) pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Stent deployment may be associated with distal embolization and slow flow in coronary thrombotic lesions. There are no data on the risk of distal thrombus embolization according to the stent design. The aim was to evaluate coronary flow after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in acute myocardial infarction according to the employed stent (closed versus open cell design). METHODS: From March 2010 to December 2011, 223 consecutive patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction were randomized to primary PCI either with an open cell (112 patients, 88 men) or with a closed cell stent design (111 patients, 92 men). The primary endpoint was the corrected TIMI frame count (cTFC) after the procedure. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in procedural success nor in-stent deployment in the 2 groups. At baseline, there were no significant differences in cTFC between the 2 groups (70 ± 37 and 67 ± 39, P = .65, respectively). After the procedure, the open cell group showed significantly higher cTFC compared to the closed cell group (18 ± 11 and 15 ± 5, P = .003 respectively). This difference was associated with a significant lower rate of TIMI 3 flow (87% and 95%, P = .037) and myocardial blush grade 3 (65% and 87%, P = .001) in the open compared to the closed cell group. There were 2 cases of death in the open cell and 1 case in the closed cell group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a closed cell stent design rather than an open cell during PCI for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction is associated with better coronary angiographic flow after PCI.

Cardiac magnetic resonance detection of left ventricular thrombus in acute myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION: Left ventricular thrombosis (LVT) is a possible complication of acute myocardial infarction. Aim of our study was to evaluate incidence and clinical characteristics of patients with LVT after ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) using contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective cohort of 36 consecutive patients with STEMI acutely reperfused with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, CMR was performed within one week. LVT was found in 7 patients (19%), and was located in left ventricle apex or adherent to antero-septum. Compared to the rest of population patients with LVT have lower ejection fraction (38 ± 7% versus 51 ± 6%, P = 0.009), larger left ventricle end systolic volume (95.8 ± 19 ml versus 68.9 ± 19 ml, P = 0.02), higher time to reperfusion (9.3 ± 7.2 versus 5 ± 3.6, P = 0.03) and left anterior descending artery was constantly involved (100% versus 41 %, P = 0.06). In 5 cases the LVT was also detected by echocardiography, however, in 2 cases it was missed. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of LVT after STEMI is not negligible and was accurately detected by CMR. Localization of myocardial infarction, time to reperfusion, ejection fraction and left ventricle end systolic volume are the most important predictors of left ventricle thrombus formation.

Simultaneous transradial coronary and renal in stent restenosis treatment in diabetic patient with NSTEMI complicated by hypertensive emergency.

The elderly diabetic patients are increasingly referred for percutaneous coronary interventions during acute coronary syndromes. A nonegligible proportion of this population includes the in stent restenosis as a possible cause of ischemic syndrome. This population accounts an higher risk of ischemic, bleeding and vascular complications affecting the periprocedural management, the length of hospital stay and also the prognosis. The improvement of strategies concerning site of access choice, antithrombotic drug and timing of interventional treatment have significantly reduced the incidence of complications. This paper reports the case of a 76 years-old diabetic female with a high bleeding risk, referred to our hospital because of NSTEMI complicated by pulmonary edema during hypertensive emergency. The patient had a simultaneous in stent restenosis both in left descending coronary artery and left renal artery, undergoing percutaneous transradial treatment during bivalirudin infusion. The clinical, technical, pharmacological and prognostic implications are discussed.

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).

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 operator's 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 operator's proficiency.

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.

The PREHAMI (PREsillion™ in high-risk acute myocardial infarction) registry: in-hospital and long-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of the new Cobalt-Chromium (Co-Cr) Presillion™ stent for the treatment of high-risk acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent represents the gold standard treatment for acute MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled patients with high-risk acute MI (either ST-segment elevation MI or non-ST-segment elevation MI) treated with PCI using a new Co-Cr bare metal stent with closed cells design and limited balloon compliance. We considered high-risk features as one of the following: age ≥ 70 years, ejection fraction ≤ 35%, glomerular filtration rate ≤ 60 mL/min, diabetes mellitus, rescue PCI, or chronic atrial fibrillation or other conditions requiring long-term oral anticoagulation therapy. Primary outcome of the study was rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, new MI, and target-vessel revascularization. A total of 129 consecutive patients were enrolled (69 ± 11 years, 74% men): 71 (55%) patients with ST-segment elevation MI and 58 (45%) patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI. A total of 153 vessels (169 lesions and 179 stents) were treated. The device success rate was high (98.8%). In-hospital MACE rate was 5.4% mainly because of death associated with the acute MI. At 1-year follow-up, the MACE rate was 17.3%, with 11% all-cause death (7.9% of cardiac origin), 0.6% of stent thrombosis, and 4.6% target-vessel revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Co-Cr Presillion stent in patients with high-risk acute MI treated invasively seems to be safe and efficacious with optimal deliverability and good long-term outcomes and represents a good option in the treatment of these patients.