Comparison of one-catheter strategy versus conventional two-catheter strategy on the volume of radiological contrast and diagnostic coronary catheterization performance by transradial access: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background: One-catheter strategy, based in multipurpose catheters, allows exploring both coronary arteries with a single catheter. This strategy could simplify coronary catheterization and reduce the volume of contrast administration, by reducing radial spasm. To date, observational studies showed greater benefits regarding contrast consumption and catheterization performance than controlled trials. The aim of this work is to perform the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) to adequately quantify the benefits of one-catheter strategy, with multipurpose catheters, over conventional two-catheter strategy on contrast consumption, and catheterization performance. Methods: A search in PubMed, CINALH, and CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify randomized trials comparing one-catheter and two-catheter strategies. The primary outcome was volume of iodinated contrast administrated. Secondary endpoints, evaluating coronary catheterization performance included: arterial spasm, fluoroscopy time, and procedural time. Results: Five RCT were included for the final analysis, with a total of 1599 patients (802 patients with one-catheter strategy and 797 patients with two-catheter strategy). One-catheter strategy required less administration of radiological contrast (difference in means [DiM] [95% confidence interval (CI)]; -3.831 mL [-6.165 mL to -1.496 mL], p = 0.001) as compared to two-catheter strategy. Furthermore, less radial spasm (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.484 [0.363 to 0.644], p < 0.001) and less procedural time (DiM [95% CI], -72.471 s [-99.694 s to -45.249 s], p < 0.001) were observed in one-catheter strategy. No differences on fluoroscopy time were observed. Conclusions: One-catheter strategy induces a minimal reduction on radiological contrast administration but improves coronary catheterization performance by reducing arterial spasm and procedural time as compared to conventional two-catheter strategy.

Antecedentes: La estrategia de catéter único permite explorar ambas coronarias con un solo catéter. Nuestro objetivo es realizar la primera revisión sistemática y meta-análisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados para cuantificar adecuadamente los beneficios de la estrategia de catéter único, con catéteres multipropósito, sobre la estrategia convencional de dos catéteres. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda en PubMed, CINALH y CENTRAL, identificando ensayos aleatorizados que compararan estrategias de un catéter y dos catéteres. El resultado primario fue volumen de contraste administrado. Los secundarios, que evaluaron el rendimiento del cateterismo, incluyeron: espasmo radial, tiempo de fluoroscopia y de procedimiento. Resultados: Se incluyeron cinco ensayos, totalizando 1,599 pacientes (802 con estrategia de un catéter y 797 con estrategia de dos catéteres). La estrategia de catéter único requirió menos contraste (diferencia-de-medias; −3.831 mL [−6.165 mL a −1.496 mL], p = 0.001), presentando menos espasmo radial (odds ratio, 0.484 [0.363 a 0.644], p < 0.001) y menos tiempo de procedimiento (diferencia-de-medias; −72.471 s [−99.694 s a −45.249 s], p < 0.001). No hubo diferencias en el tiempo de fluoroscopia. Conclusiones: La estrategia de catéter único induce una reducción mínima en la administración de contraste, pero mejora el rendimiento del cateterismo al reducir el espasmo radial y el tiempo de procedimiento en comparación con la estrategia convencional.

Comparison of one-catheter strategy versus conventional two-catheter strategy on the volume of radiological contrast and diagnostic coronary catheterization performance by transradial access: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials / Comparación de la estrategia de catéter único versus la estrategia convencional de dos catéteres sobre el volumen de contraste radiológico y el rendimiento del cateterismo coronario diagnóstico por acceso transradial: una revisión sistemática y meta-análisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados

Abstract Background: One-catheter strategy, based in multipurpose catheters, allows exploring both coronary arteries with a single catheter. This strategy could simplify coronary catheterization and reduce the volume of contrast administration, by reducing radial spasm. To date, observational studies showed greater benefits regarding contrast consumption and catheterization performance than controlled trials. The aim of this work is to perform the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) to adequately quantify the benefits of one-catheter strategy, with multipurpose catheters, over conventional two-catheter strategy on contrast consumption, and catheterization performance. Methods: A search in PubMed, CINALH, and CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify randomized trials comparing one-catheter and two-catheter strategies. The primary outcome was volume of iodinated contrast administrated. Secondary endpoints, evaluating coronary catheterization performance included: arterial spasm, fluoroscopy time, and procedural time. Results: Five RCT were included for the final analysis, with a total of 1599 patients (802 patients with one-catheter strategy and 797 patients with two-catheter strategy). One-catheter strategy required less administration of radiological contrast (difference in means [DiM] [95% confidence interval (CI)]; −3.831 mL [−6.165 mL to −1.496 mL], p = 0.001) as compared to two-catheter strategy. Furthermore, less radial spasm (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.484 [0.363 to 0.644], p < 0.001) and less procedural time (DiM [95% CI], −72.471 s [−99.694 s to −45.249 s], p < 0.001) were observed in one-catheter strategy. No differences on fluoroscopy time were observed. Conclusions: One-catheter strategy induces a minimal reduction on radiological contrast administration but improves coronary catheterization performance by reducing arterial spasm and procedural time as compared to conventional two-catheter strategy.

Resumen Antecedentes: La estrategia de catéter único permite explorar ambas coronarias con un solo catéter. Nuestro objetivo es realizar la primera revisión sistemática y meta-análisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados para cuantificar adecuadamente los beneficios de la estrategia de catéter único, con catéteres multipropósito, sobre la estrategia convencional de dos catéteres. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda en PubMed, CINALH y CENTRAL, identificando ensayos aleatorizados que compararan estrategias de un catéter y dos catéteres. El resultado primario fue volumen de contraste administrado. Los secundarios, que evaluaron el rendimiento del cateterismo, incluyeron: espasmo radial, tiempo de fluoroscopia y de procedimiento. Resultados: Se incluyeron cinco ensayos, totalizando 1,599 pacientes (802 con estrategia de un catéter y 797 con estrategia de dos catéteres). La estrategia de catéter único requirió menos contraste (diferencia-de-medias; −3.831 mL [−6.165 mL a −1.496 mL], p = 0.001), presentando menos espasmo radial (odds ratio, 0.484 [0.363 a 0.644], p < 0.001) y menos tiempo de procedimiento (diferencia-de-medias; −72.471 s [−99.694 s a −45.249 s], p < 0.001). No hubo diferencias en el tiempo de fluoroscopia. Conclusiones: La estrategia de catéter único induce una reducción mínima en la administración de contraste, pero mejora el rendimiento del cateterismo al reducir el espasmo radial y el tiempo de procedimiento en comparación con la estrategia convencional.

[Use of primary care resources by immigrants and the autochthonous persons who contact the care services in the city of Lleida, Spain]. / Utilización de recursos de atención primaria por parte de inmigrantes y autóctonos que han contactado con los servicios asistenciales de la ciudad de Lleida.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the use of the different primary care (PC) services between immigrants and the indigenous population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observation study of a population seen in (PC). SETTING: Patients seen by 15 PC doctors, in 5 basic health areas (BHA) in the city of Lleida, Spain, from March to August 2005. PARTICIPANTS: All immigrants (1,599 patients of immigrant origin) who seen during the study period were included. A random sample of 300 patients was taken from each of the 15 participating clinics (4,156 autochthonous patients). The autochthonous was considered as those whose country of origin is Spain and the immigrant population those who come from low and medium income countries, regardless of the time of residence in the BHA. PRIMARY MEASUREMENTS: Age, sex, type of visit made, and referrals made. Multinomial regression models were used to calculate the relative risk (RR) of having made visits. RESULTS: Immigrants have a higher probability to make 3 visits than the indigenous population, who would make 1 or 2 visits (RR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.91). The estimation of the RR of having made visits is higher in the immigrants for all categories, except nursing. CONCLUSIONS: Immigrants who come into contact with PC, make more frequent visits to the family doctor and gynaecology, and also have more complementary tests done. However, the frequency of use of the immigrant group for nursing visits seems to be less.

Utilización de recursos de atención primaria por parte de inmigrantes y autóctonos que han contactado con los servicios asistenciales de la ciudad de Lleida / Use of primary care resources by immigrants and autochthonous persons who contact the care services in the city of Lleida

Objetivo. Evaluar y comparar la utilización de recursos en los distintos servicios de atención primaria (AP) entre inmigrantes y autóctonos. Diseño. Estudio observacional transversal en población visitada en AP. Emplazamiento. Personas atendidas por 15 médicos de AP en 5 áreas básicas de salud (ABS) de la ciudad de Lleida de marzo a agosto de 2005. Participantes. Se incluyó a todos los inmigrantes atendidos durante el período de estudio (1.599 pacientes de origen inmigrante). Se realizó un muestreo aleatorio de 300 pacientes en cada una de las 15 consultas participantes (4.156 pacientes de origen autóctono). Se consideró población autóctona aquella cuyo país de origen es España y población inmigrante aquella que proviene de los países de renta baja y media, independientemente del tiempo de asistencia al ABS. Mediciones principales. Edad, sexo, tipo de visitas realizadas y las derivaciones efectuadas. Se utilizaron modelos de regresión multinomial para estimar el riesgo relativo (RR) de haber realizado las visitas. Resultados. Los inmigrantes tienen una probabilidad superior a los autóctonos de realizar más de 3 visitas, frente a 1 o 2 visitas (RR = 1,23; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%, 1,04-1,91%). La estimación del RR de haber realizado visitas es superior en los inmigrantes para todas las categorías, excepto en enfermería (RR = 0,59; IC del 95%, 0,5-0,71%). Conclusiones. Los inmigrantes que contactan con AP lo hacen con mayor frecuencia en las consultas de medicina de familia y de ginecología, y además se realizan más pruebas complementarias. Sin embargo, la frecuentación del colectivo inmigrante a las consultas de enfermería parece ser inferior

Objective. To evaluate and compare the use of the different primary care (PC) services between immigrants and the indigenous population. Design. Cross-sectional observation study of a population seen in (PC). Setting. Patients seen by 15 PC doctors, in 5 basic health areas (BHA) in the city of Lleida, Spain, from March to August 2005. Participants. All immigrants (1599 patients of immigrant origin) who seen during the study period were included. A random sample of 300 patients was taken from each of the 15 participating clinics (4156 autochthonous patients). The autochthonous was considered as those whose country of origin is Spain and the immigrant population those who come from low and medium income countries, regardless of the time of residence in the BHA. Primary measurements. Age, sex, type of visit made, and referrals made. Multinomial regression models were used to calculate the relative risk (RR) of having made visits. Results. Immigrants have a higher probability to make 3 visits than the indigenous population, who would make 1 or 2 visits (RR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.91). The estimation of the RR of having made visits is higher in the immigrants for all categories, except nursing. Conclusions. Immigrants who come into contact with PC, make more frequent visits to the family doctor and gynaecology, and also have more complementary tests done. However, the frequency of use of the immigrant group for nursing visits seems to be less