Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Transradial access for cardiac catheterisation results in lower bleeding and vascular complications than the traditional transfemoral access route. However, the increased radiation exposure potentially associated with transradial access is a possible drawback of this method. Whether transradial access is associated with a clinically significant increase in radiation exposure that outweighs its benefits is unclear. Our aim was therefore to compare radiation exposure between transradial access and transfemoral access for diagnostic coronary angiograms and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the scientific literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases with relevant terms, and cross-referencing relevant articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared radiation parameters in relation to access site, published from Jan 1, 1989, to June 3, 2014. Three investigators independently sorted the potentially relevant studies, and two others extracted data. We focused on the primary radiation outcomes of fluoroscopy time and kerma-area product, and used meta-regression to assess the changes over time. Secondary outcomes were operator radiation exposure and procedural time. We used both fixed-effects and random-effects models with inverse variance weighting for the main analyses, and we did confirmatory analyses for observational studies. FINDINGS: Of 1252 records identified, we obtained data from 24 published RCTs for 19 328 patients. Our primary analyses showed that transradial access was associated with a small but significant increase in fluoroscopy time for diagnostic coronary angiograms (weighted mean difference [WMD], fixed effect: 1.04 min, 95% CI 0.84-1.24; p<0.0001) and PCI (1.15 min, 95% CI 0.96-1.33; p<0.0001), compared with transfemoral access. Transradial access was also associated with higher kerma-area product for diagnostic coronary angiograms (WMD, fixed effect: 1.72 Gy.cm2, 95% CI -0.10 to 3.55; p=0.06), and significantly higher kerma-area product for PCI (0.55 Gy.cm2, 95% CI 0.08-1.02; p=0.02). Mean operator radiation doses for PCI with basic protection were 107 muSv (SD 110) with transradial access and 74 muSv (68) with transfemoral access; with supplementary protection, the doses decreased to 21 muSv (17) with transradial access and 46 muSv (9) with transfemoral. Meta-regression analysis showed that the overall difference in fluoroscopy time between the two procedures has decreased significantly by 75% over the past 20 years from 2 min in 1996 to about 30 s in 2014 (p<0.0001). In observational studies, differences and effect sizes remained consistent with RCTs. INTERPRETATION: Transradial access was associated with a small but significant increase in radiation exposure in both diagnostic and interventional procedures compared with transfemoral access. Since differences in radiation exposure narrow over time, the clinical significance of this small increase is uncertain and is unlikely to outweigh the clinical benefits of transradial access. FUNDING: None.

BACKGROUND: In the SAFE-PCI for Women trial, patient preference for radial access for future procedures was greater than for femoral access. We sought to assess whether radial or femoral access impacts formal measures of quality-of-life (QOL) among women undergoing cardiac catheterization. METHODS: We assessed QOL using European quality of life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores among 304 women randomized to radial or femoral arteriotomy in the SAFE-PCI for Women trial at sites with QOL substudy approval. Patient surveys were administered at baseline, hospital discharge, and 30 days (for percutaneous coronary intervention patients). RESULTS: Women randomized to both treatments had similar EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS scores at baseline, hospital discharge, and 30-day follow-up. After adjustment for baseline scores, there was no effect of assigned treatment on EQ-5D (discharge 0.004; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 30 days -0.03; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02) or EQ-VAS (discharge -1.31; 95% CI -4.74 to 2.12; 30 days -2.10; 95% CI -8.92 to 4.71) scores. At discharge, 60.5% versus 63.5% (P = .60) of patients in radial and femoral groups were free from access site pain; at 30 days, rates were 85.7% versus 77.6% (P = .30), respectively. Patient preference for the same access strategy for repeat procedures was greater in the radial versus femoral group (77.2% vs 26.8%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Using established QOL instruments, we did not measure any difference in QOL or functional status according to access site strategy in women undergoing cardiac catheterization, yet patient preference for the radial approach was significantly greater. Other factors influencing patient choice for radial access should be investigated.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess the current use and application of simulators in interventional cardiology. BACKGROUND:Despite a paucity of data on the efficacy of simulation in medicine, cardiovascular simulation training is now a mandated part of cardiovascular fellowship training. Additionally, simulators have been endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration as a way to teach physicians new and novel procedures. We sought to establish the current use of simulators in cardiovascular medicine. METHODS:A systematic review was done of available training programs, and currently existing data regarding simulation training. A panel of experts was convened to review this data and provide recommendations as how simulation should be used in the field of interventional cardiology. RESULTS:This document provides a comprehensive review of the current state of simulation and how we as a society must formulate well validated studies to more closely examine and explore how this technology can be further studied and validated. CONCLUSIONS:Simulation will likely take on a larger role in cardiovascular training and maintenance of certification, but at the current time lacks a large body of evidence for its use.

Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with significant reductions in access site complications and major bleeding as compared with the transfemoral approach. Bivalirudin is now the most commonly used anticoagulant for transradial PCI in the United States, while weight adjusted unfractionated heparin remains the most common choice outside the United States. A growing number of reports suggest that transradial intervention may offer improved outcomes across a variety of clinical situations, including those at the highest risk of bleeding complications, such as those with acute myocardial infarction. The following review provides an overview of the studies evaluating anticoagulation in transradial PCI and a rationale for the combination of the transradial approach to coronary interventions with an optimal anticoagulant strategy to reduce both access site and nonaccess site-related bleeding.

OBJECTIVE:We assessed the long-term outcomes of elderly patients who had in-stent restenosis (ISR) treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with other treatment strategies. BACKGROUND:Elderly patients with ISR represent a vulnerable group of which little is known regarding the safety and efficacy of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS:We analyzed patients ≥ 65 years of age who underwent PCI for ISR in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry(®) from 2004 to 2008. Death, myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, stroke, and bleeding were assessed for up to 30 months by a linkage with Medicare rehospitalization claims. RESULTS:Of 43,679 linked patients, 30,012 were treated with DES, 8,277 with balloon angioplasty (BA), and 4,917 with bare metal stents (BMS). Compared with BMS, DES use was associated with a lower propensity score-matched (PM) risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.80, P < 0.001), MI (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70-0.93, P = 0.003), and revascularization (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.82-1.00, P = 0.055). Compared with BA, DES use was associated with a lower PM risk of death (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.76-0.89, P < 0.001) and revascularization (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.93, P < 0.001), but no statistically significant difference across other endpoints. There were no significant differences in long-term outcomes for BA compared with BMS. CONCLUSIONS:There was lower mortality and reduced risk for MI, revascularization, and stroke, but a similar rate of bleeding with DES compared with other modalities. Our results indicate that DES use is a comparatively effective strategy to treat elderly patients with ISR.

BACKGROUND:Several percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials have established that the use of bivalirudin (BIV) is associated with improved patient outcomes and substantial hospital cost savings, relative to heparin (HEP)-based regimens±glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). Whether these benefits persist with the use of prasugrel, a new third-generation oral thienopyridine, has not been previously evaluated. METHODS:Using the Premier hospital database, 6986 patients treated with prasugrel who underwent elective, urgent, or primary PCI between quarter 3, 2009 and quarter 4, 2010 from 166 US hospitals were identified. These patients received either BIV (n=3377) or HEP±GPI (n=3609) as procedural anticoagulation. Outcomes of interest included bleeding, transfusions, death, and hospital length of stay (LOS). To control for patient and hospital-level characteristics, propensity score-matching (PSM) analyses were performed. RESULTS:Mortality, clinically apparent bleeding, clinically apparent bleeding requiring transfusion, any transfusions, and LOS were all lower in patients treated with BIV as compared with patients treated with HEP±GPI. After PSM, the rate of transfusion was significantly lower with BIV (odds ratio: 0.57, 95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.96), and the hospital LOS was significantly shorter in patients treated with BIV compared with those treated with HEP±GPI (0.9±2.0 vs 1.2±2.3 days, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:In patients undergoing PCI and treated with prasugrel, the use of BIV rather than HEP±GPI is associated with significantly lower transfusion rate and LOS. These results suggest that the previously documented safety and cost-effectiveness benefits of BIV remain applicable when prasugrel is used.