Radiation Exposure Using Rampart vs Standard Lead Aprons and Shields During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures.

Background: Radiation exposure during invasive cardiovascular procedures remains an important health care issue. Lead aprons and shields (LAS) are used to decrease radiation exposure but leave large portions of the body unshielded. The Rampart IC M1128 is a portable radiation shielding system that may significantly attenuate radiation exposure. Methods: Catheterization laboratory teams were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to perform elective invasive cardiovascular procedures utilizing either traditional LAS or the Rampart IC M1128. Radiation exposure was measured using real-time dosimetry monitoring in prespecified anatomic locations on 3 operators (position 1: first operator/fellow; position 2: second operator/attending; and position 3: catheterization laboratory nurse/technologist). Radiation exposure was measured on a per-case basis. Results: In total, 100 consecutive cases were randomized in this study (47 Rampart; 53 LAS). There was no difference in fluoroscopy time (12.3 minutes for Rampart vs 15.4 minutes for LAS; P = .52), dose area product (288 Gy⋅cm2 for Rampart vs 376.5 Gy⋅cm2 for LAS; P = .52), or scatter radiation (38.8 mRem for Rampart vs 46.8 mRem for LAS; P = .61) between the groups. There was significantly lower total body radiation (in milliroentgen equivalent man) exposure using the Rampart than that using LAS for each team member: position 1-0.1 mRem for Rampart vs 2.2 mRem for LAS; P < .001; position 2-0.1 mRem Rampart vs 3.2 mRem LAS; P < .001; and position 3-0.0 mRem for Rampart vs 0.8 mRem for LAS; P < .001. Conclusions: During routine clinical procedures, the Rampart system significantly decreases total body radiation exposure compared with traditional LAS.

An Advanced Cardiac Life Support Application Improves Performance during Simulated Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVES: Variability in cardiopulmonary arrest training and management leads to inconsistent outcomes during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Existing clinical decision aids, such as American Heart Association (AHA) advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS) pocket cards and third-party mobile apps, often lack comprehensive management guidance. We developed a novel, guided ACLS mobile app and evaluated user performance during simulated cardiac arrest according to the 2020 AHA ACLS guidelines via randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Forty-six resident physicians were randomized to lead a simulated code team using the AHA pockets cards (N = 22) or the guided app (N = 24). The primary outcome was successful return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Secondary outcomes included code leader stress and confidence, AHA ACLS guideline adherence, and errors. A focus group of 22 residents provided feedback. Statistical analysis included two-sided t-tests and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: App users showed significantly higher ROSC rate (50 vs. 18%; p = 0.024), correct thrombolytic administration (54 vs. 23%; p = 0.029), backboard use (96 vs. 27%; p < 0.001), end-tidal CO2 monitoring (58 vs. 27%; p = 0.033), and confidence compared with baseline (1.0 vs 0.3; p = 0.005) compared with controls. A focus group of 22 residents indicated unanimous willingness to use the app, with 82% preferring it over AHA pocket cards. CONCLUSION: Our guided ACLS app shows potential to improve user confidence and adherence to the AHA ACLS guidelines and may help to standardize in-hospital cardiac arrest management. Further validation studies are essential to confirm its efficacy in clinical practice.

A Comparison of Thirty-Day Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Native Aortic Insufficiency.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to compare in-hospital and 30-day outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for native aortic insufficiency (AI). BACKGROUND: TAVR is increasingly used off-label in patients with AI deemed high risk for SAVR. There is a paucity of data comparing TAVR and SAVR with current commercially available TAVR devices. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR for native AI between 2014 and 2020 was performed. Data were obtained from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database, Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) registry, and chart review. In-hospital and 30-day outcomes are reported. RESULTS: Of 125 total patients, 91 underwent SAVR and 34 underwent TAVR. The TAVR group had a higher STS predictive risk of mortality (PROM) (TAVR = 3.96 %, SAVR = 1.25 %, p < 0.0001). In the postoperative period, the SAVR group had higher rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation (20.9 % vs. 0 %, p < 0.001), while the TAVR group had higher rates of complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (20.6 % vs. 2.2 %, p < 0.001). There was no difference in in-hospital or 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, residual AI, or repeat valve intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher STS PROM and more comorbidities, patients who underwent TAVR for AI had similar in-hospital and 30-day outcomes as patients who underwent SAVR for AI. These results support TAVR in selected high-risk patients with AI, with the knowledge that pacemaker needs may be higher than patients undergoing SAVR.

New-Onset Uncontrolled Hypertension and Renal Failure in a Young Woman.

This report describes the case of a previously healthy 30-year-old woman who presented with uncontrolled hypertension and renal failure. This case emphasizes the importance of considering renal artery disease. The differential diagnosis for renal artery stenosis is discussed, and the diagnosis and management of Takayasu's arteritis in this patient are highlighted. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.).