Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention is associated with lower patient radiation exposure in high-radial-volume centres: Insights from the RAY'ACT-1 study.

BACKGROUND: Literature suggests that radial access is associated with higher radiation doses than femoral access. AIMS: To compare patient radiation exposure during coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with radial versus femoral access. METHODS: RAY'ACT is a nationwide, multicentre, French survey evaluating patient radiation in interventional cardiology. Variables of patient exposure from 21,675 CAs and 17,109 PCIs performed at 44 centres during 2010 were analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: Radial access was used in 71% of CAs and 69% of PCIs. Although median fluoroscopy times were longer for radial versus femoral access (CA, 3.8 vs 3.5minutes [P<0.001]; PCI, 10.4 vs 10.1minutes [P=0.001]), the Kerma-area product (KAP) was lower with radial access (CA, 26.8 vs 28.1Gy·cm2; PCI, 55.6 vs 59.4Gy·cm2; both P=0.001). Differences in KAP remained significant in the multivariable analysis (P<0.01), and in a propensity score-matched analysis (P=0.01). A significant interaction was found between KAP and the percentage of procedures with radial access by centre (P<0.001). KAP was higher by radial versus femoral access in low-radial-volume centres, and lower in high-radial-volume centres. Radiation protection techniques, such as the use of low frame rates (7.5 frame/s), were used more frequently in high-radial-volume radial centres. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre study, radial access was associated with lower radiation doses to patient than femoral access in high-radial-volume centres. Provided that radioprotection methods are implemented, radial access could be associated with lower patient radiation exposure.

Dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease in modern practice: prevalence, correlates, and impact on prognosis (from the Suivi d'une cohorte de patients COROnariens stables en region NORd-Pas-de-Calais study).

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and correlates of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) are unknown. In addition, whether prolonged DAPT may impact prognosis in stable CAD has not been studied in real-life conditions. METHODS: We studied 3,691 patients included in a prospective registry on stable CAD. The patients were divided in 2 groups according to their antiplatelet therapy regimen at inclusion: patients treated with DAPT were compared with those treated with single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. RESULTS: Altogether, 868 (24%) patients received DAPT. Factors positively associated with DAPT use were persistent angina at inclusion, body mass index, myocardial infarction since 1 to 3 years, myocardial revascularization since 1 to 3 years, multivessel CAD, prior drug-eluting stent implantation, and prior aortic or peripheral intervention. Factors negatively associated with DAPT use were age, prior coronary bypass, and left ventricular ejection fraction. The rate of the primary outcome at 2 years was similar whether patients were treated with SAPT (4.6%) or DAPT (5.5%) (P = .301). Similar rates were also observed after propensity score matching: 5.7% when treated with SAPT versus 5.5% when treated with DAPT (P = .886). The rate of bleeding was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that a significant proportion of stable CAD patients are treated with DAPT in modern practice. Several correlates of DAPT were identified. Although no increase in bleeding was observed, our results do not support the prescription of prolonged DAPT.