ABSTRACT: most of the studies assessing transradial approach for coronary angiography (CA) have been performed through right radial approach (RRA). Our aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of left radial approach (LRA) compared with RRA for coronary procedures.
from January 2009 to December 2009, in 2 hospitals, 1,540 patients were randomized to RRA (770 patients) or LRA (770 patients) for percutaneous coronary procedures. The primary end point was fluoroscopy time for CA and for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) evaluated independently. Prespecified subgroup analyses according to patient age and operator experience were planned.
in 1,467 patients (732 RRA and 735 LRA), a CA (diagnostic group) was performed, and in 688 (344 each for RRA and LRA), a PCI. In the diagnostic group, LRA was associated with significantly lower fluoroscopy time (149 seconds, interquartile range [IQR] 95-270 seconds) and dose area product fluoroscopy (10.7 Gy cm(2), IQR 6-20.5 Gy cm(2)) compared with the RRA (168 seconds, IQR 110-277 seconds, P = .0025 and 12.1 Gy cm(2), IQR 7-23.8 Gy cm(2), P = .004, respectively). In the PCI group, there were no significant differences in fluoroscopy time (614 seconds, IQR 367-1,087 seconds for LRA and 695 seconds, IQR 415-1,235 seconds, P = .087 for RRA) and dose area product fluoroscopy (53.7 Gy cm(2), IQR 29-101 Gy cm(2) for LRA and 63.1 Gy cm(2), IQR 31-119 Gy cm(2), P = .17 for RRA). According to subgroup analyses, the differences between LRA and RRA were confined to older patients (≥ 70 years old) and to operators in training.
left radial approach for coronary diagnostic procedures is associated with lower fluoroscopy time and radiation dose adsorbed by patients compared with the RRA, particularly in older patients and for operators in training.
American heart journal 01/2011; 161(1):172-9. · 4.65 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: To overview and summarize the results emerging from the studies on adjunctive devices (AD) with theoretical anti-embolic properties in patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).
A series of small-to-medium size randomized studies have compared different AD with standard PCI (SP) in the setting of STEMI. The reported results are conflicting.
Eighteen prospective randomized studies on 3180 STEMI patients comparing AD with SP were identified and entered the meta-analysis. Pre-specified angiographic, electrocardiographic (absence of ST-segment resolution, STR) and early (up to 30 days) clinical end-points were assessed.
AD were associated with lower rates of angiographically evident distal embolization: OR (95% CI): 0.54 (0.37-0.81). Analyses of angiographic and electrocardiographic reperfusion showed striking heterogeneity among studies and an overall trend toward better results with AD: OR (95% CI) 0.76 (95% CI 0.51-1.12) for TIMI<3, 0.53 (0.37-0.76) for myocardial blush grade (MBG)<3, 0.60 (0.45-0.78) for absence of STR. Subgroup analysis according to the type of AD for the end-point of no STR showed concordant absence of benefit in studies testing distal protection devices, positive results being confined to the studies using thrombectomy devices (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.66). However, the possibility of a "small study" bias within thrombectomy studies cannot be discharged (significant heterogeneity and positive Egger's test). Early major adverse cardiac events were not different between AD and SP.
AD use may be associated with reduced rate of angiographic distal embolization, and improved MBG 3 and STR rates. However, efficacy might vary with the type of device employed. Moreover, early clinical outcome is not modified suggesting that further, larger, studies are needed to assess the clinical impact of AD.
We conducted a meta-analysis of 18 prospective randomized trials comparing adjunctive devices (AD) with standard PCI in the setting of STEMI. The use of AD was associated with lower rates of (angiographically evident) distal embolization. Analyses of angiographic and electrocardiographic reperfusion showed striking heterogeneity and an overall trend toward better results with AD. Subgroup analysis suggested that different types of device may have different effects. Early major adverse cardiac events were similar between AD and SP.
International journal of cardiology 02/2008; 123(3):313-21. · 7.08 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: Coronary artery anomalies (CAA) often render technically difficult the completion of coronary angiography and intervention. Their presence in patients undergoing emergency angiography for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is particularly challenging for interventional cardiologists. In this article, we report, for the first time in the literature, a case of rescue percutaneous coronary intervention for failed thrombolysis in a patient with AMI due to occlusion of a left circumflex coronary artery with anomalous origin from right sinus of Valsalva (in an anomalous left coronary system also including an anomalous origin of the left anterior descending artery from the right sinus). In particular, the present clinical vignette emphasizes the importance of a thorough search for the culprit vessel during cardiac catheterization. Especially in the emergency setting, non-invasive methods of ischemia localization, such as ST-segment elevation at the ECG and wall motion abnormalities at echocardiography, are of pivotal usefulness to guide the interventional cardiologist in identifying and treating the diseased coronary vessel in a timely and effective fashion.
International Journal of Cardiology 04/2005; 99(2):325-6. · 7.08 Impact Factor