Feasibility and Safety of Coronary Angiography via Radial Approach in Cardiac Transplant Recipients: A Single Center Experience.

Coronary angiography remains the gold standard post-transplant screening test for cardiac allograft vasculopathy. This procedure has traditionally been performed via femoral approach. Data on safety and efficacy of radial approach in cardiac transplant patients remains scarce. Single center retrospective study including all cardiac transplant patients who underwent coronary angiography via transradial approach (TRA) or transfemoral approach (TFA). Safety and efficacy outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Primary end points included major bleeding, vascular complications, crossover to femoral approach, contrast use and radiation exposure. A total of 201 patients were included. 96 patients (47.8%) underwent angiography via TRA. At baseline, no significant differences with regards to age, gender, or traditional risk factors such as HTN, DM, hyperlipidemia were noted between the 2 groups. Most patients underwent intravascular ultrasound (n = 179, 89%) with no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (TRA: 90.6% vs TFA: 87.6%, P = 0.5). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in radiation exposure, amount of contrast use and fluoroscopy time between the 2 groups. Although there were trends toward increased bleeding among TFA group, these were not statistically significant and were mostly driven by access site hematomas. Use of TRA increased over time and Conversion from TRA to TFA was low (n = 4, 4.2%). Coronary angiography via the radial approach in cardiac transplant recipients is feasible, safe and is associated with low a risk of bleeding with no significant increase in radiation exposure when compared to the traditional femoral approach.

Systematic oral hydration with water is similar to parenteral hydration for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: an updated meta-analysis of randomised clinical data.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is the third most common cause of hospital-acquired kidney injury and is related to increased long-term morbidity and mortality. Adequate intravenous (IV) hydration has been demonstrated to lessen its occurrence. Oral (PO) hydration with water is inexpensive and readily available but its role for CIN prevention is yet to be determined. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched until April 2015 and studies were selected using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. All randomised clinical trials with head-to-head comparison between PO and IV hydration were included. RESULTS: A total of 5 studies with 477 patients were included in the analysis, 255 of those receiving PO water. The incidence of CIN was statistically similar in the IV and PO arms (7.7% and 8.2%, respectively; relative risk 0.97; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.94; p=0.95). The incidence of CIN was statistically similar in the IV and PO arms in patients with chronic kidney disease and with normal renal function. Rise in creatinine at 48-72 h was lower in the PO hydration group compared with IV hydration (pooled standard mean difference 0.04; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.06; p<0.001; I(2)=62%). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis shows that systematic PO hydration with water is at least as effective as IV hydration with saline to prevent CIN. PO hydration is cheaper and more easily administered than IV hydration, thus making it more attractive and just as effective.

Prognostic Value of Stress Echocardiography in Patients Presenting with Syncope.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation for ischemia is appropriate in patients at risk for or with a history of coronary artery disease presenting with syncope. The aim of this study is to determine the prognostic value of stress echocardiography in patients presenting with syncope. METHODS: We examined our database of all patients undergoing stress echocardiography at our institution. Patients referred due to syncope were grouped as high risk based on any of the following: (1) known history of coronary artery disease, (2) left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, (3) moderate or severe mitral or aortic valve regurgitation, and (4) moderate mitral or aortic valve stenosis. The main outcomes were the presence of ischemia on stress imaging and all-cause mortality using the social security death index. RESULTS: A total of 225 patients were identified; mean age was 64.3 ± 14.5 years, the mean follow-up duration was 29.2 ± 13.8 months. There were 163 patients in the low-risk group and 62 patients in the high-risk group. On imaging, 7% of the overall cohort had ischemia. The low-risk group had 5 (3%) patients with ischemia and the high-risk group had 10 patients (16%) with ischemia (P < 0.01). The mortality rate was significantly higher in the high-risk group (3.99%/year vs. 1.02%/year; P = 0.02); this difference was not affected by the presence of ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients with syncope as defined by appropriateness criteria and existing evidence carry a higher risk of ischemia and all-cause mortality. The presence of ischemia may not be predictive of long-term outcome in this group.

Prevalence and long-term prognosis of patients with complete bundle branch block (right or left bundle branch) with normal left ventricular ejection fraction referred for stress echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of stress echocardiography (SE) in patients with complete bundle branch blocks (BBB) with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has not been well described. We sought to determine the prognostic value of SE in patients with BBB and normal LVEF. METHODS: We analyzed 7214 patients (58 ± 14 years; 57% female) with a mean follow-up time of 9 ± 4 years. Dobutamine SE was performed in 51% of patients and exercise SE was performed in 49%. All-cause mortality data were obtained from the Social Security Death Index. RESULTS: There were 222 (3%) patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) and 50 (0.7%) patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Patients with LBBB were 3 times more likely to have an abnormal stress test after adjusting for age, gender, mode of stress test, and coronary artery disease risk factors (OR = 3.3; 95% CI: 1.86-5.92; P < 0.001). The mortality rates were 4.5%/year for patients with LBBB, 2.5%/year for patients with RBBB, and 1.9%/year for patients without BBB (P < 0.001). Among patients with a normal SE, those with LBBB had similar mortality to those without LBBB (HR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4-2.2; P = 0.8). Patients with LBBB and abnormal SE had more than 2 times greater risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.4-4.2; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: A normal stress echocardiogram in LBBB is associated with benign prognosis while those with LBBB and abnormal SE have the worst outcomes.