Complete Revascularization Versus Culprit-Lesion-Only PCI in STEMI Patients With Diabetes and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Results From the COMPLETE Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the COMPLETE trial (Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization to Treat Multivessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI), a strategy of complete revascularization reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. Patients with diabetes have a worse prognosis following STEMI. We evaluated the consistency of the effects of complete revascularization in patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: The COMPLETE trial randomized a strategy of complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (guideline-directed medical therapy alone). In prespecified analyses, treatment effects were determined in patients with and without diabetes on the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction and the second coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death, new myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. Interaction P values were calculated to evaluate whether there was a differential treatment effect in patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: Of the 4041 patients enrolled in the COMPLETE trial, 787 patients (19.5%) had diabetes. The median HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin) was 7.7% in the diabetes group and 5.7% in the nondiabetes group. Complete revascularization consistently reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.59-1.29]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.90]), with no evidence of a differential treatment effect (interaction P=0.36). Similarly, for the second coprimary outcome, no differential treatment effect (interaction P=0.27) of complete revascularization was found in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.43-0.87]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.39-0.60]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over a culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention strategy was consistent regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Ultrasound-guided femoral access in patients with vascular closure devices: a prespecified analysis of the randomised UNIVERSAL trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether ultrasound (US)-guided femoral access compared to femoral access without US guidance decreases access site complications in patients receiving a vascular closure device (VCD) is unclear. AIMS: We aimed to compare the safety of VCD in patients undergoing US-guided versus non-US-guided femoral arterial access for coronary procedures. METHODS: We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the UNIVERSAL trial, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of 1:1 US-guided femoral access versus non-US-guided femoral access, stratified for planned VCD use, for coronary procedures on a background of fluoroscopic landmarking. The primary endpoint was a composite of major Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 bleeding and vascular complications at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 621 patients, 328 (52.8%) received a VCD (86% ANGIO-SEAL, 14% ProGlide). In patients who received a VCD, those randomised to US-guided femoral access compared to non-US-guided femoral access experienced a reduction in major bleeding or vascular complications (20/170 [11.8%] vs 37/158 [23.4%], odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.82). In patients who did not receive a VCD, there was no difference between the US- and non-US-guided femoral access groups, respectively (20/141 [14.2%] vs 13/152 [8.6%], OR 1.76, 95% CI: 0.80-4.03; interaction p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving a VCD after coronary procedures, US-guided femoral access was associated with fewer bleeding and vascular complications compared to femoral access without US guidance. US guidance for femoral access may be particularly beneficial when VCD are used.

Design and Rationale of Routine UltrasouNd GuIdance for Vascular AccEss foR Cardiac Procedures: A Randomized TriaL (UNIVERSAL).

Background: A significant limitation of femoral artery access for cardiac interventions is the increased risk of vascular complications and bleeding compared to radial access. Ultrasound (US)-guided femoral access may reduce major vascular complications and bleeding. We aim to determine whether routinely using US guidance for femoral arterial access for coronary angiography or intervention will reduce Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding or major vascular complications. Methods: The Ultrasound Guidance for Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures: A Randomized Trial (UNIVERSAL) is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized trial with blinded outcomes assessment. Patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without intervention via a femoral approach with fluoroscopic guidance will be randomized 1:1 to US-guided femoral access, compared to no US. The primary outcome is the composite of major bleeding based on the BARC 2, 3, or 5 criteria or major vascular complications within 30 days. The trial is designed to have 80% power and a 2-sided alpha level of 5% to detect a 50% relative risk reduction for the primary outcome based on a control event rate of 14%. Results: We completed enrollment on April 29, 2022, with 621 randomized patients. The patients had a mean age of 71 years (25.4% female), with a high rate of comorbidities, as follows: 45% had a prior percutaneous coronary intervention; 57% had previous coronary artery bypass surgery; and 18% had peripheral vascular disease. Conclusions: The UNIVERSAL trial will be one of the largest randomized trials of US-guided femoral access and has the potential to change guidelines and increase US uptake for coronary procedures worldwide.

Introduction: Par rapport à l'abord radial, la limitation importante de l'abord artériel fémoral lors des interventions au cœur pose un risque accru de complications vasculaires et de saignements. L'abord fémoral guidé par ultrasons (US) peut contribuer à réduire les complications vasculaires majeures et les saignements. Nous avons pour objectif de déterminer si l'utilisation systématique du guidage par US pour l'abord artériel fémoral lors des angiographies ou des interventions coronariennes contribuera à réduire les saignements de type 2, 3 ou 5 selon le B leeding A cademic R esearch C onsortium (BARC) ou les complications vasculaires majeures. Méthodes: L' U ltrasou n d Gu i dance for V ascular Acc e ss fo r Cardiac Procedure s : A Randomized Tria l (UNIVERSAL) est un essai multicentrique, prospectif, ouvert, à répartition aléatoire, réalisé par une évaluation à l'insu des résultats. Les patients subissant une angiographie coronarienne avec ou sans intervention par voie fémorale sous guidage fluoroscopique seront répartis de façon aléatoire 1:1 à l'abord fémoral guidé par US ou sans US. Le principal critère d'évaluation est le critère composite de saignements majeurs de type 2, 3 ou 5 selon les critères du BARC ou de complications vasculaires majeures dans les 30 jours. L'essai est conçu de façon à avoir une puissance de 80 % et un seuil alpha bilatéral de 5 % pour déterminer la réduction du risque relatif de 50 % du critère d'évaluation principal selon un taux d'événements dans le groupe témoin de 14 %. Résultats: Le 29 avril 2022, nous avons terminé le recrutement de 621 patients choisis aléatoirement. Les patients avaient un âge moyen de 71 ans (25,4 % de femmes) et un taux élevé de comorbidités : 45 % avaient déjà subi une intervention coronarienne percutanée, 57 % avaient déjà subi un pontage aorto-coronarien et 18 % avaient une maladie vasculaire périphérique. Conclusions: L'essai UNIVERSAL qui sera l'un des plus vastes essais à répartition aléatoire sur l'abord fémoral guidé par US a le potentiel de faire changer les lignes directrices et de faire augmenter le recours aux US lors des interventions coronariennes dans le monde entier.

Effects of routine early treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), early initiation of high-intensity statin therapy, regardless of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, is the standard of practice worldwide.  Aims: We sought to determine the effect of a similar early initiation strategy, using a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor added to the high-intensity statin, on LDL cholesterol in acute STEMI. METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind trial we assigned 68 patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to early treatment with alirocumab 150 mg subcutaneously or to a matching sham control. The first injection was given before primary PCI regardless of the baseline LDL level, then at 2 and 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the percent reduction in direct LDL cholesterol up to 6 weeks, analysed using a linear mixed model.   Results: High-intensity statin use was 97% and 100% in the alirocumab and sham-control groups, respectively. At a median of 45 days, the primary outcome of LDL cholesterol decreased by 72.9% with alirocumab (2.97 mmol/L to 0.75 mmol/L) versus 48.1% with the sham control (2.87 mmol/L to 1.30 mmol/L), for a mean between-group difference of -22.3% (p<0.001). More patients achieved the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society dyslipidaemia guideline target of LDL ≤1.4 mmol/L in the alirocumab group (92.1% vs 56.7%; p<0.001). Within the first 24 hours, LDL declined slightly more rapidly in the alirocumab group than in the sham-control group (-0.01 mmol/L/hour; p=0.03) with similar between-group mean values.  Conclusions: In this randomised trial of routine early initiation of PCSK9 inhibitors in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI, alirocumab reduced LDL cholesterol by 22% compared with sham control on a background of high-intensity statin therapy. A large trial is needed to determine if this simplified approach followed by long-term therapy improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute STEMI. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03718286).

Routine Ultrasonography Guidance for Femoral Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures: The UNIVERSAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A significant limitation of femoral artery access for cardiac interventions is the increased risk of vascular complications and bleeding compared with radial access. Strategies to make femoral access safer are needed. Objective: To determine whether routinely using ultrasonography guidance for femoral arterial access for coronary angiography/intervention reduces bleeding or vascular complications. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Routine Ultrasound Guidance for Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures (UNIVERSAL) randomized clinical trial is a multicenter, prospective, open-label trial of ultrasonography-guided femoral access vs no ultrasonography for coronary angiography or intervention with planned femoral access. Patients were randomized from June 26, 2018, to April 26, 2022. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were not eligible. Interventions: Ultrasonography guidance vs no ultrasonography guidance for femoral arterial access on a background of fluoroscopic landmarking. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary composite outcome is the composite of major bleeding based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 criteria or major vascular complications within 30 days. Results: A total of 621 patients were randomized at 2 centers in Canada (mean [SD] age, 71 [10.24] years; 158 [25.4%] female). The primary outcome occurred in 40 of 311 patients (12.9%) in the ultrasonography group vs 50 of 310 patients (16.1%) without ultrasonography (odds ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.49-1.20]; P = .25). The rates of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding were 10.0% (31 of 311) vs 10.7% (33 of 310) (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.55-1.56]; P = .78). The rates of major vascular complications were 6.4% (20 of 311) vs 9.4% (29 of 310) (odds ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.37-1.20]; P = .18). Ultrasonography improved first-pass success (277 of 311 [86.6%] vs 222 of 310 [70.0%]; odds ratio, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.85-4.12]; P < .001) and reduced the number of arterial puncture attempts (mean [SD], 1.2 [0.5] vs 1.4 [0.8]; mean difference, -0.26 [95% CI, -0.37 to -0.16]; P < .001) and venipuncture (10 of 311 [3.1%] vs 37 of 310 [11.7%]; odds ratio, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.12-0.50]; P < .001) with similar times to access (mean [SD], 114 [185] vs 129 [206] seconds; mean difference, -15.1 [95% CI, -45.9 to 15.8]; P = .34). All prerandomization prespecified subgroups were consistent with the overall finding. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, use of ultrasonography for femoral access did not reduce bleeding or vascular complications. However, ultrasonography did reduce the risk of venipuncture and number of attempts. Larger trials may be required to demonstrate additional potential benefits of ultrasonography-guided access. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03537118.

Nonculprit Lesion Severity and Outcome of Revascularization in Patients With STEMI and Multivessel Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: In the COMPLETE (Complete vs Culprit-only Revascularization to Treat Multi-vessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI) trial, angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesions with the aim of complete revascularization reduced major cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of nonculprit-lesion stenosis severity measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) on the benefit of complete revascularization. METHODS: Among 4,041 patients randomized in the COMPLETE trial, nonculprit lesion stenosis severity was measured using QCA in the angiographic core laboratory in 3,851 patients with 5,355 nonculprit lesions. In pre-specified analyses, the treatment effect in patients with QCA stenosis ≥60% versus <60% on the first coprimary outcome of CV death or new MI and the second co-primary outcome of CV death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was determined. RESULTS: The first coprimary outcome was reduced with complete revascularization in the 2,479 patients with QCA stenosis ≥60% (2.5%/year vs. 4.2%/year; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47 to 0.79), but not in the 1,372 patients with QCA stenosis <60% (3.0%/year vs. 2.9%/year; HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.50; interaction p = 0.02). The second coprimary outcome was reduced in patients with QCA stenosis ≥60% (2.9%/year vs. 6.9%/year; HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.54) to a greater extent than patients with QCA stenosis <60% (3.3%/year vs. 5.2%/year; HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.89; interaction p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ST-segment elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization reduced major CV outcomes to a greater extent in patients with stenosis severity of ≥60% compared with <60%, as determined by quantitative coronary angiography.

Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

Importance: Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown. Objective: To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center's database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist. Results: Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540; P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%]; P < .001). When the heart team agreed with the original treatment decision, there was more agreement between the heart team interventional cardiologist and the original treating interventional cardiologist (138 of 163 cases [84.7%]) compared with when the heart team disagreed with the original treatment decision (14 of 71 cases [19.7%]); P < .001). Those with an original treatment of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy, 32 of 148 patients [22.3%], 32 of 71 patients [45.1%], and 6 of 15 patients [40.0%], respectively, received a different treatment recommendation from the heart team than the original treating interventional cardiologist; the difference across the 3 groups was statistically significant (P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: The heart team's recommended treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease differed from that of the original treating interventional cardiologist in up to 30% of cases. This subset of cases was associated with a lower frequency of unanimous decisions within the heart team and less concordance between the interventional cardiologists; discordance was more frequent when percutaneous coronary intervention or medication therapy were considered. Further research is needed to evaluate whether heart team decisions are associated with improvements in outcomes and, if so, how to identify patients for whom the heart team approach would be beneficial.

Cardiac Complications Associated With Checkpoint Inhibition: A Systematic Review of the Literature in an Important Emerging Area.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors, including programmed cell death-1, programmed cell death ligand-1 and cytotoxic lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibitors, have emerged as important therapeutic alternatives for advanced malignancies. This drug class upregulates T-cell activity, leading to an immune response against cancer cells. However, the increased activity of T cells can lead to autoimmune reactions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of all published articles and grey literature in PubMed, Medline, and Embase on cardiac complications associated with checkpoint inhibitor use from September 1, 1996 to November 10, 2017. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 908 unique articles. Of these, 835 were excluded on the basis of abstract and full-text review. A total of 73 studies met eligibility criteria and were included. We found a total of 99 cases of cardiotoxicity with the use of checkpoint inhibitors. Myocarditis (45%) was the most common cardiotoxicity. The overall case fatality rate was 35%. This was notably higher in patients with myocarditis, complete heart block, or conduction abnormalities, and ventricular arrhythmias. There was no difference in outcomes for patients treated with or without steroids. Immunosuppressive therapies such as infliximab, mycophenolate, intravenous immunoglobulin, antithymocyte globulin, and/or plasmapheresis were used in 12 patients leading to survival in 9 of these patients (75%). CONCLUSIONS: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with cardiotoxicity. Because of the high case fatality rate, close surveillance and prompt empiric therapy for cardiovascular complications of checkpoint inhibitors should be considered. Aggressive treatment with immunosuppressive agents and/or plasmapheresis might lead to clinical improvement and increased survival.

Heparin use for diagnostic cardiac catheterization with a radial artery approach: An international survey of practice patterns.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe global practice patterns of unfractionated heparin (UFH) use for diagnostic transradial cardiac catheterization. BACKGROUND: The use of the radial artery approach for cardiac catheterization is increasing globally. Limited contemporary data exist to support the use or optimal dosing of UFH to prevent radial artery occlusion (RAO) and other thromboembolic complications. METHODS: We performed a web-based international survey of 450 interventional cardiologists from 34 countries. We collected information regarding the experience and use of UFH for diagnostic transradial cardiac catheterization. RESULTS: The survey was conducted between June and July 2016 and was completed by 227 (50.4%) interventional cardiologists. Overall, 83.3% performed >75% of their coronary angiograms via a radial approach, with the plurality (41.9%) having 10-20 years of clinical experience. Of all respondents, 7.5% did not use UFH for routine diagnostic transradial heart catheterization. Of the 92.5% who did use UFH, it was preferentially administered intra-arterially by 60% and intravenously by 40%. The majority (62.6%) of interventionalists used a fixed UFH dose with 5,000 IU being the most common dose (used in 48%). For those using a weight-based UFH (50 IU/kg) dosing regimen for diagnostic procedures (36.1%), the administered UFH dose ranged from 2,000 up to 10,000 IU. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of firm evidence, the majority of interventional cardiologists who participated in the survey use UFH to prevent RAO for diagnostic transradial coronary angiography. However, there exist large practice disparities with regards to dose and route of administration. Given this knowledge gap, a dedicated randomized trial is warranted.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Radiation Protection With a Patient Lead Shield and a Novel, Nonlead Surgical Cap for Operators Performing Coronary Angiography or Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Interventional cardiologists receive one of the highest levels of annual occupational radiation exposure. Further measures to protect healthcare workers are needed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated the efficacy of a pelvic lead shield and a novel surgical cap in reducing operators' radiation exposure. Patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (n=230) were randomized to have their procedure with or without a lead shield (Ultraray Medical, Oakville, Canada) placed over the patient. During all procedures, operators wore the No Brainer surgical cap (Worldwide Innovations and Technology, Kansas City, KS) designed to protect the head from radiation exposure. The coprimary outcomes for the lead shield comparison were (1) operator dose (µSv) and (2) operator dose indexed for air kerma (µSv/mGy). For the cap comparison, the primary outcome was the difference between total radiation dose (µSv; internal and external to cap). The lead shield use resulted in a 76% reduction in operator dose (mean dose, 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-4.71 µSv lead shield group versus 12.57; 95% CI, 8.14-19.40 µSv control group; P<0.001). The mean dose indexed for air kerma was reduced by 72% (0.004; 95% CI, 0.003-0.005 µSv/mGy lead shield group versus 0.015; 95% CI, 0.012-0.019 µSv/mGy control group; P<0.001). The cap use resulted in a significant reduction in operator head radiation exposure (mean left temporal difference [external-internal] radiation dose was 4.79 [95% CI, 3.30-6.68] µSv; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a pelvic lead shield and the cap reduced significantly the operator radiation exposure and can be easily incorporated into clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02128035.

Stroke in the TOTAL trial: a randomized trial of routine thrombectomy vs. percutaneous coronary intervention alone in ST elevation myocardial infarction.

AIMS: TOTAL (N = 10 732), a randomized trial of routine manual thrombectomy vs. percutaneous coronary intervention alone in ST elevation myocardial infarction, showed no difference in the primary efficacy outcome but a significant increase in stroke. We sought to understand these findings. METHODS AND RESULTS: A detailed analysis of stroke timing, stroke severity, and stroke subtype was performed. Strokes were adjudicated by neurologists blinded to treatment assignment. Stroke within 30 days, the primary safety outcome, was increased [33 (0.7%) vs. 16 (0.3%), hazard ratio (HR) 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-3.75]. The difference in stroke was apparent within 48 h [15 (0.3%) vs. 5 (0.1%), HR 3.00; 95% CI 1.09-8.25]. There was an increase in strokes within 180 days with minor or no disability (Rankin 0-2) [18 (0.4%) vs. 13 (0.3%) HR 1.38; 95% CI 0.68-2.82] and in strokes with major disability or fatal (Rankin 3-6) [35 (0.7%) vs. 13 (0.3%), HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.42-5.08]. Most of the absolute difference was due to an increase in ischaemic strokes within 180 days [37 (0.7%) vs. 21 (0.4%), HR 1.71; 95% CI 1.03-3.00], but there was also an increase in haemorrhagic strokes [10 (0.2%) vs. 2 (0.04%), HR 4.98; 95% CI 1.09-22.7]. Patients that had a stroke had a mortality of 30.8% within 180 days vs. 3.4% without a stroke (P < 0.001). A meta-analysis of randomized trials (N = 21 173) showed an increase in risk of stroke (odds ratio 1.59; 95% CI 1.11-2.27) but a trend towards reduction in mortality odds ratio (odds ratio 0.87; 95% CI 0.76-1.00). CONCLUSION: Thrombectomy was associated with a significant increase in stroke. Based on these findings, future trials must carefully collect stroke to determine safety in addition to efficacy.

Procedural volume and outcomes with radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach. BACKGROUND: RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) was a randomized trial of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention (N = 7,021), which overall did not show a difference in primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding. METHODS: In pre-specified subgroup analyses, the hazard ratios for the primary outcome were compared among centers divided by tertiles and among individual operators. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent effect of center and operator volumes after adjusting for other variables. RESULTS: In high-volume radial centers, the primary outcome was reduced with radial versus femoral access (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.87) but not in intermediate- (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.72) or low-volume centers (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.31; interaction p = 0.021). High-volume centers enrolled a higher proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). After adjustment for STEMI, the benefit of radial access persisted at high-volume radial centers. There was no difference in the primary outcome between radial and femoral access by operator volume: high-volume operators (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.28), intermediate (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27), and low (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; interaction p = 0.536). However, in a multivariable model, overall center volume and radial center volume were independently associated with the primary outcome but not femoral center volume (overall percutaneous coronary intervention volume HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96; radial volume HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97; and femoral volume HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07; p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Procedural volume and expertise are important, particularly for radial percutaneous coronary intervention. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273).

Radial artery access as a predictor of increased radiation exposure during a diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedure.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether radial artery access is associated with increased radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization and whether this relationship differs between operators, after adjustment for clinical and patient characteristics associated with greater radiation exposure. BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have demonstrated a relationship between radial access and increased radiation exposure to the patient during fluoroscopy-guided cardiac procedures, such studies did not account for differences in operator technique or clustering of patients, procedure complexity, or patient size. Those studies included data from few operators. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on 5,954 diagnostic cardiac catheterizations performed at a tertiary cardiac center. A multilevel regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between radial artery access and radiation exposure. RESULTS: After adjustment for multiple factors, radial access was associated with increased exposure (beta = 0.22, p < 0.0001) when compared with the use of femoral access, as measured using the logarithmically transformed air kerma (LogAK). On average, radial access accounted for a 23% increase in measured AK. This was consistent between operators. There were observed differences in the mean LogAK between operators (p = 0.0158), as well as substantial variation in measured LogAK between patients within each operator's practice (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Radial artery access cardiac catheterization was associated with increased radiation exposure to the patient when compared with femoral access. The measured AK was still far below the threshold for deterministic effects in most patients studied. Observed variations in AK between and within operators may point to better opportunities to reduce exposure.

Predictors of increased radiation dose during percutaneous coronary intervention.

Radiation-induced injury is a potential unintended outcome of fluoroscopy-supported cardiology procedures (e.g., percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]). The injury might be deterministic in nature. Air kerma (AK) is considered an indicator of skin dose, and thus, an indicator for deterministic effects. Few studies have investigated the factors that contribute to an increased radiation dose, and none have used AK as a dependent variable. We studied the registry data of 967 consecutive patients (derivation model) undergoing ad hoc PCI. Linear and multiple regression analyses were performed to investigate which clinical, technical, and anatomic factors were associated with an increased AK. Multiple regression analyses were performed on an additional sample of 1,082 consecutive patients (validation model) to confirm the results. The variables found significant (multiple regression analyses) were radial access (mean increase in AK 253 mGy, 95% confidence interval [CI] 104 to 418, p = 0.0006), number of lesions treated (547 mGy, 95% CI 332 to 789, p < 0.0001), Type C lesions (132 mGy, 95% CI, 26 to 246, p = 0.014), bifurcation lesions (280 mGy, 95% CI 104 to 477, p = 0.0013), and chronic total occlusions (453 mGy, 95% CI 76 to 923, p = 0.016). The validation model (n = 1,082) confirmed all but type C lesions (p = 0.065). In conclusion, the present study has described factors that might contribute to an increased AK during PCI. In revealing a priori known factors associated with an increased radiation dose during PCI, physicians and patients might be more able to evaluate the risks and benefits of such a procedure.