Radial versus femoral access for orally anticoagulated patients

Stroke risk in radial versus femoral approach in coronary intervention: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Peri-cardiac catheterization (CC) stroke is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Little is known about any potential difference in stroke risk between transradial (TR) and transfemoral (TF) approaches. We explored this question through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from 1980 to June 2022. Randomized trials and observational studies comparing radial versus femoral access CC or intervention that reported stroke events were included. A random-effects model was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The total population in our 41 pooled studies comprised 1 112 136 patients - average age 65 years, women averaging 27% in TR and 31% in TF approaches. Primary analysis of 18 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that included a total of 45 844 patients showed that there was no statistical significance in stroke outcomes between the TR approach and the TF approach [odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-1.06, P -value = 0.013, I2 = 47.7%]. Furthermore, meta-regression analysis of RCTs including procedural duration between those two access sites showed no significance in stroke outcomes (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86-1.34, P -value = 0.921, I2 = 0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in stroke outcomes between the TR approach and the TF approach.

Prostatic Artery Embolization for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms via Transradial Versus Transfemoral Artery Access: Single-Center Technical Outcomes

Objective

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) via transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA).

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study included 53 consecutive men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) who underwent PAE between September 2018 and September 2021. Thirty-one patients (mean age ± standard deviation: 70.6 ± 8.4 years) were treated with TFA, including 14 patients treated before adopting TRA. Since December 2019, TRA has also been attempted with the procedure’s selection criteria of patent carpal circulation and a height ≤ 172 cm, with 22 patients treated via TRA (69.1 ± 9.6 years). Parameters of technical success (defined as successful bilateral embolization), clinical success (defined as LUTS improvement), procedural time, radiation dose, and adverse events were compared between the two groups using the Fisher’s exact test, independent sample t test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, or Mann-Whitney test.

Results

All patients received at least one-side PAE. Technical success of PAE was achieved in most patients (TRA, 21/22; TFA, 30/31; p > 0.999). No technical problem-related conversion from TRA to TFA occurred. The clinical success rate was 85% (11/13) in patients with TRA, and 89% (16/18) in patients with TFA for follow-up > 2 weeks post-PAE (median, 3 months) (p > 0.999). The median procedure time was similar in both groups (TRA, 81 minutes vs. TFA, 94 minutes; p = 0.570). No significant dose differences were found between the TRA and TFA groups in the dose-area product (median Gycm², 95 [range, 44–255] for TRA and 84 [34–255] for TFA; p = 0.678) or cumulative air kerma (median mGy, 609 [236–1584] for TRA and 634 [217–1594] for TFA; p = 0.551). No major adverse events occurred in either of the groups.

Conclusion

PAE via TRA is a safe and feasible method comparable to conventional TFA. It can be safely implemented by selecting patients with patent carpal circulation and adequate height.

Radial Access for Coronary Angiography Carries Fewer Complications Compared with Femoral Access: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), the benefits associated with radial access compared with the femoral access approach remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term evidence-based clinical outcome of the two approaches.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radial versus femoral access for CA and PCI. We identified 34 RCTs with 29,352 patients who underwent CA and/or PCI and compared 14,819 patients randomized for radial access with 14,533 who underwent procedures using femoral access. The follow-up period for clinical outcome was 30 days in all studies. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effect or a random-effect model, as appropriate. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for efficacy and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Compared with femoral access, the radial access was associated with significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (RR: 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61 to 0.88; p = 0.001), major bleeding (RR: 0.53; 95% CI:0.43 to 0.65; p ˂ 0.00001), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)(RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.91; p = 0.0002), and major vascular complications (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.48; p ˂ 0.00001). These results were consistent irrespective of the clinical presentation of ACS or STEMI.

CONCLUSIONS

Radial access in patients undergoing CA with or without PCI is associated with lower mortality, MACE, major bleeding and vascular complications, irrespective of clinical presentation, ACS or STEMI, compared with femoral access.

Transradial approach and its variations for neurointerventional procedures: Literature review

Background:

The transfemoral approach (TFA) has been the standard in neuroradiology over the years. However, the transradial approach (TRA) and its variants offer several benefits over the TFA.

Methods:

Review of the literature about TRA and its variations. We present our results for different neurointerventional procedures at our institution between January 2018 and December 2019.

Results:

We wrote an educational review describing anatomical and technical aspects, advantages, and complications of this approach. In the past year we increased the percentage of neurointerventional procedures performed through radial or ulnar arteries.

Conclusion:

There are clearly proven benefits of employing a wrist approach in patients for neurointerventional procedures and its utilization should especially be considered on a daily basis.

An Update on Radial Artery Access and Best Practices for Transradial Coronary Angiography and Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Transradial artery access for percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower bleeding and vascular complications than transfemoral artery access, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. A growing body of evidence supports adoption of transradial artery access to improve acute coronary syndrome-related outcomes, to improve healthcare quality, and to reduce cost. The purpose of this scientific statement is to propose and support a "radial-first" strategy in the United States for patients with acute coronary syndromes. This document also provides an update to previously published statements on transradial artery access technique and best practices, particularly as they relate to the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Antiplatelet and anticoagulation regimen in patients with mechanical valve undergoing PCI - State-of-the-art review

A common clinical dilemma regarding treatment of patients with a mechanical valve is the need for concomitant antiplatelet therapy for a variety of reasons, referred to as triple therapy. Triple therapy is when a patient is prescribed aspirin, a P2Y12 antagonist, and an oral anticoagulant. Based on the totality of the available evidence, best practice in 2017 for patients with mechanical valves undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear. Furthermore, the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI is evolving. With better valve designs that are less thrombogenic, the thromboembolic risks can be reduced at a lower international normalized ratio target, thus decreasing the bleeding risk. This review will offer an in-depth survey of current guidelines, current evidence, suggested approach for PCI in this cohort, and future studies regarding mechanical valve patients undergoing PCI.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Transradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).

Transradial cerebral angiography: techniques and outcomes

Background

Despite several retrospective studies analyzing the safety and efficacy of transradial access (TRA) versus transfemoral access (TFA) for cerebral angiography, this transition for neurointerventional procedures has been gradual. Nonetheless, based on our positive initial institutional experience with TRA for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke patients, we have started transitioning more of our cerebral angiography cases to TRA. Here we present our single institution experience.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patients receiving TRA cerebral angiography at our institution between January 2016 and February 2017. We present our experience transitioning from TFA to TRA, including our criteria for patient selection, technical nuances, patient experience, complications, and operator learning curve.

Results

We included 148 angiograms performed in 141 people by one of four operators. No major complications were observed, and the technical success of the procedures was consistent with those of TFA. Marked improvement in operator efficiency was achieved in a short number of cases during this transition when looking at operator proficiency as a function of angiograms performed and days of exposure to TRA (4.3 vs 3.6 min/vessel, P<0.05).

Conclusions

Safety and efficiency can be preserved while transitioning to TRA. While further investigation is necessary to support transition to TRA, these findings should call for a re-evaluation of the role of TRA in catheter cerebral angiography.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A North American Perspective-2016 Update

The optimal antithrombotic treatment regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation is an emerging clinical problem. Currently, there is limited evidenced-based data on the optimal antithrombotic treatment regimen, including antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies, for these high-risk patients with practice guidelines, thus, providing limited recommendations. Over the past years, expert consensus documents have provided guidance to clinicians on how to manage patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Given the recent advancements in the field, the current document provides an updated opinion of selected North American experts from the United States and Canada on the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In particular, this document provides the current views on (1) embolic/stroke risk, (2) ischemic/thrombotic cardiac risk, and (3) bleeding risk, which are pivotal for discerning the choice of antithrombotic therapy. In addition, we describe the recent advances in pharmacology, stent designs, and clinical trials relevant to the field. Ultimately, we provide expert consensus-derived recommendations, using a pragmatic approach, on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Transradial access: lessons learned from cardiology

Innovations in interventional cardiology historically predate those in neuro-intervention. As such, studying trends in interventional cardiology can be useful in exploring avenues to optimise neuro-interventional techniques. One such cardiology innovation has been the steady conversion of arterial puncture sites from transfemoral access (TFA) to transradial access (TRA), a paradigm shift supported by safety benefits for patients. While neuro-intervention has unique anatomical challenges, the access itself is identical. As such, examining the extensive cardiology literature on the radial approach has the potential to offer valuable lessons for the neuro-interventionalist audience who may be unfamiliar with this body of work. Therefore, we present here a report, particularly for neuro-interventionalists, regarding the best practices for TRA by reviewing the relevant cardiology literature. We focused our review on the data most relevant to our audience, namely that surrounding the access itself. By reviewing the cardiology literature on metrics such as safety profiles, cost and patient satisfaction differences between TFA and TRA, as well as examining the technical nuances of the procedure and post-procedural care, we hope to give physicians treating complex cerebrovascular disease a broader data-driven understanding of TRA.

Predictors of common femoral artery access site complications in patients on oral anticoagulants and undergoing a coronary procedure

Background

It is unclear whether patients on oral anticoagulants (OAC) undergoing a procedure using common femoral artery access have higher adverse events when compared to patients who are not anticoagulated at the time of the procedure.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data from consecutive patients who underwent a cardiac procedure at a tertiary medical center. Patients were considered (group A) fully or partially anticoagulated if they had an international normalized ratio (INR) ≥1.6 on the day of the procedure or were on warfarin or new OAC within 48 h and 24 h of the procedure, respectively. The nonanticoagulated group (group B) had an INR <1.6 or had stopped their warfarin and new OAC >48 h and >24 h preprocedure, respectively. The index primary end point of the study was defined as the composite end point of major bleeding, vascular complications, or cardiovascular-related death during index hospitalization. The 30-day primary end point was defined as the occurrence of the index primary end point and up to 30 days postprocedure.

Results

A total of 779 patients were included in this study. Of these patients, 27 (3.5%) patients were in group A. The index primary end point was met in 11/779 (1.4%) patients. The 30-day primary composite end point was met in 18/779 (2.3%) patients. There was no difference in the primary end point at index between group A (1/27 [3.7%]) and group B (10/752 [1.3%]; P=0.3155) and no difference in the 30-day primary composite end point between group A (2/27 [7.4%]) and group B (16/752 [2.1%]; P=0.1313). Multivariable analysis showed that a low creatinine clearance (odds ratio [OR] =0.56; P=0.0200) and underweight patients (<60 kg; OR =3.94; P=0.0300) were independent predictors of the 30-day primary composite end point but not oral anticoagulation (P=0.1500).

Conclusion

Patients on OAC did not have higher 30-day major adverse events than those who were not anticoagulated at index procedure.

Influence of access site choice for cardiac catheterization on risk of adverse neurological events: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Stroke is a rare but potentially catastrophic complication of cardiac catheterization. Although some procedural aspects are known to influence stroke risk, the impact of radial versus femoral access site use is unclear. Early observational studies and limited randomized trial data suggested more frequent embolic events with radial access. Subsequently, larger pooled analyses have shown no clear differences in stroke risk but were limited by low event rates. Recent publication of relevant new data prompted our reevaluation of this concern. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate stroke complicating cardiac catheterization with use of transradial versus transfemoral access.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was undertaken using OVID SP with appropriate search terms. RevMan 5.3.5 was used to conduct a random-effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for pooling risk ratios (RRs) or the Mantel-Haenszel method for pooling dichotomous data. Pooled data from >24,000 patients in randomized controlled trials and >475,000 patients from observational studies were used. The risk ratio (RR) for (any) stroke, using randomized controlled trial data, was not significant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58-1.29). Using observational data, a significant difference favoring radial access was seen (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Radial access site utilization for cardiac catheterization is not associated with an increased risk of stroke events. These data provide reassurance and should remove another potential barrier to conversion to a "default" radial practice among those who are currently predominantly femoral operators.

Determination of a safe INR for joint injections in patients taking warfarin

INTRODUCTION

With an increase in life expectancy in 'developed' countries, the number of elderly patients receiving joint injections for arthritis is increasing. There are legitimate concerns about an increased risk of thromboembolism if anticoagulation is stopped or reversed for such an injection. Despite being a common dilemma, the literature on this issue is scarce.

METHODS

We undertook 2,084 joint injections of the knee and shoulder in 1,714 patients between August 2008 and December 2013. Within this cohort, we noted 41 patients who were taking warfarin and followed them immediately after joint injection in the clinic or radiology department, looking carefully for complications. Then, we sought clinical follow-up, correspondence, and imaging evidence for 4 weeks, looking for complications from these joint injections. We recorded International Normalised Ratio (INR) values before injection.

RESULTS

No complications were associated with the procedure after any joint injection. The radiologists who undertook ultrasound-guided injections to shoulders re-scanned the joints looking for haemarthroses: they found none. A similar outcome was noted clinically after injections in the outpatient setting.

CONCLUSION

With a mean INR of 2.77 (range, 1.7-5.5) and a maximum INR within this group of 5.5, joint injections to the shoulder and knee can be undertaken safely in primary or secondary care settings despite the patient taking warfarin.

Dual antiplatelet therapy in the anticoagulated patient undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention risks, benefits, and unanswered questions

A commonly encountered scenario is the patient with atrial fibrillation (AF) on oral anticoagulation (OAC) who either develops an acute coronary syndrome or has to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement. In such patients, separate indications suggest combining OAC and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). This approach, however, increases the risk of bleeding as well as thromboembolic risk if bleeding does not occur. For optimal clinical results, the risks and benefits of all possible treatment options should be determined based on the best available data. This review provides an overview of the most recent data regarding the optimal treatment of AF patients with an indication for combined treatment with OAC and DAPT.

The optimal management of patients on oral anticoagulation undergoing coronary artery stenting. The 10th Anniversary Overview

Even 10 years after the first appearance in the literature of articles reporting on the management of patients on oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent (PCI-S), this issue is still controversial. Nonetheless, some guidance for the everyday management of this patient subset, accounting for about 5-8 % of all patients referred for PCI-S, has been developed. In general, a period of triple therapy (TT) of OAC, with either vitamin K-antagonists (VKA) or non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC), aspirin, and clopidogrel is warranted, followed by the combination of OAC, and a single antiplatelet agent for up to 12 months, and then OAC alone. The duration of the initial period of TT is dependent on the individual risk of thromboembolism, and bleeding, as well as the clinical context in which PCI-S is performed (elective vs acute coronary syndrome), and the type of stent implanted (bare-metal vs drug-eluting). In this article, we aim to provide a comprehensive, at-a-glance, overview of the management strategies, which are currently suggested for the peri-procedural, medium-term, and long-term periods following PCI-S in OAC patients. While acknowledging that most of the evidence has been obtained from patients on OAC because of atrial fibrillation, and with warfarin being the most frequently used VKA, we refer in this overview to the whole population of OAC patients undergoing PCI-S. We refer to the whole population of patients on OAC undergoing PCI-S also when OAC is carried out with NOAC rather than VKA, pointing out, when appropriate, the particular management issues.

Safety of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via the radial versus femoral route in patients on uninterrupted oral anticoagulation with warfarin

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate access site and other bleeding complications associated with radial versus femoral access in patients receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC) with warfarin.

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving OAC with warfarin undergoing coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may have OAC continued despite the risk of bleeding. To what extent arterial access site impacts bleeding in such patients is not well studied.

METHODS

Over 6 years, we identified 255 consecutive patients in whom warfarin was continued who underwent coronary angiography with an international normalized ratio >1.8. A total of 97 patients also underwent PCI at the same setting (27% femoral vs 73% radial). The primary outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeds; a secondary end point was frequency of access site complications in the 72 hours post-PCI. Complications were evaluated based on the initial access site attempted.

RESULTS

Minimal baseline clinical characteristics differences existed between the groups. International normalized ratio was significantly higher in the radial group (2.42 ± 0.67 vs 2.24 ± 0.49, P = .02). Bivalirudin use was greater during radial PCI than femoral (76% vs 42%, P < .05), whereas unfractionated heparin alone was greater during femoral PCI than radial (46% vs 18%, P < .05). No significant difference was seen in the primary end point between femoral (2.8%) and radial (1.6%, P = .54) during coronary angiography alone. However, PCI via the femoral artery had significantly more Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding (19.2% vs 1.4%, P = .005) and transfusions (15% vs 0%, P = .004) than via the radial artery. Patients who underwent PCI using radial access were less likely to have any vascular or bleeding complications (1% vs 23%, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent coronary angiography during uninterrupted OAC had similar bleeding rates regardless of access site. However, when PCI was performed, radial access was associated with fewer bleeding and vascular complications than the femoral approach.

CONDENSED ABSTRACT

We retrospectively identified 255 consecutive patients on warfarin who underwent coronary angiography, 97 of whom underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention. The data reveal a reduction in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeds (1.6% vs 8.1%, P = .02) with radial versus femoral access. The radial approach was associated with an overall lower rate of any vascular or bleeding complication than the femoral approach during percutaneous coronary intervention (1% vs 23%, P = .001).

Frequency of radial artery occlusion after transradial access in patients receiving warfarin therapy and undergoing coronary angiography

The efficacy of warfarin-induced anticoagulation in reducing radial artery occlusion (RAO) after transradial access is not known. The present case-control study compared the incidence of early (24 hours) and late (30 days) RAO in patients undergoing transradial diagnostic coronary angiography during therapeutic warfarin anticoagulation (group 1) with that of a matched (3:1) cohort of patients not receiving warfarin and receiving intraprocedural heparin (group 2). All patients underwent transradial diagnostic coronary angiography using a 5F hydrophilic introducer sheath. The patients in group 2 received an intravenous heparin bolus (50 IU/kg) immediately after sheath insertion. After sheath removal, hemostasis was obtained using the TR-band (Terumo Interventional Systems, Terumo Medical, Tokyo, Japan) and a plethysmography-guided patent hemostasis technique. We included 86 patients receiving warfarin with an international normalized ratio of 2 to 4 in group 1 and 250 matched patients in group 2. No significant differences were present in the demographic and procedural variables between the 2 groups. Early RAO occurred in 18.6% of the patients in group 1 compared with 9.6% of patients in group 2 (p = 0.024). The incidence of late RAO remained significantly higher in group 1 compared with group 2 (13.9% vs 5.2%, p = 0.01). All patients with RAO remained asymptomatic. In conclusion, patients receiving chronic oral anticoagulation with warfarin and undergoing transradial coronary angiography without parenteral anticoagulation had a higher incidence of early and late RAO compared with patients receiving standard intravenous heparin therapy.

Triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing coronary artery stenting: hovering among bleeding risk, thromboembolic events, and stent thrombosis

Dual antiplatelet treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel is the antithrombotic treatment recommended after an acute coronary syndrome and/or coronary artery stenting. The evidence for optimal antiplatelet therapy for patients, in whom long-term treatment oral anticoagulation is mandatory, is however scarce. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the various antithrombotic strategies adopted in this population, we reviewed the available evidence on the management of patients receiving oral anticoagulation, such as a vitamin-k-antagonists, referred for coronary artery stenting.Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent indication for oral anticoagulation. The need of starting antiplatelet therapy in this clinical scenario raises concerns about the combination to choose: triple therapy with warfarin, aspirin, and a thienopyridine being the most frequent and advised. The safety of this regimen appeared suboptimal because of an increased risk in hemorrhagic complications. On the other hand, the combination of oral anticoagulation and an antiplatelet agent is suboptimal in preventing thromboembolic events and stent thrombosis; dual antiplatelet therapy may be considered only when a high hemorrhagic risk and low thromboembolic risk are perceived. Indeed, the need for prolonged multiple-drug antithrombotic therapy increases the bleeding risks when drug eluting stents are used.Since current evidence derives mainly from small, single-center and retrospective studies, large-scale prospective multicenter studies are urgently needed.

Radiation Dose Reduction during Radial Cardiac Catheterization: Evaluation of a Dedicated Radial Angiography Absorption Shielding Drape

Objectives. Radiation scatter protection shield drapes have been designed with the goal of decreasing radiation dose to the operators during transfemoral catheterization. We sought to investigate the impact on operator radiation exposure of various shielding drapes specifically designed for the radial approach. Background. Radial access for cardiac catheterization has increased due to improved patient comfort and decreased bleeding complications. There are concerns for increased radiation exposure to patients and operators. Methods. Radiation doses to a simulated operator were measured with a RadCal Dosimeter in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The mock patient was a 97.5 kg fission product phantom. Three lead-free drape designs were studied. The drapes were placed just proximal to the right wrist and extended medially to phantom's trunk. Simulated diagnostic coronary angiography included 6 minutes of fluoroscopy time and 32 seconds of cineangiography time at 4 standard angulated views (8 s each), both 15 frames/s. ANOVA with Bonferroni correction was used for statistical analysis. Results. All drape designs led to substantial reductions in operator radiation exposure compared to control (P < 0.0001). The greatest decrease in radiation exposure (72%) was with the L-shaped design. Conclusions. Dedicated radial shielding drapes decrease radiation exposure to the operator by up to 72% during simulated cardiac catheterization.

The risk of bleeding of triple therapy with vitamin K-antagonists, aspirin and clopidogrel after coronary stent implantation: Facts and questions

Background

Triple therapy (TT) with vitamin K-antagonists (VKA), aspirin and clopidogrel is the recommended antithrombotic treatment following percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation (PCI-S) in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation. TT is associated with an increased risk of bleeding, but available evidence is flawed by important limitations, including the limited size and the retrospective design of most of the studies, as well as the rare reporting of the incidence of in-hospital bleeding and the treatment which was actually ongoing at the time of bleeding. Since the perceived high bleeding risk of TT may deny patients effective strategies, the determination of the true safety profile of TT is of paramount importance.

Methods

All the 27 published studies where the incidence of bleeding at various time points during follow-up has been reported separately for patients on TT were reviewed, and the weakness of the data was analyzed.

Results

The absolute incidence of major bleeding upon discharge at in-hospital, ≤ 1 month, 6 months, 12 months and ≥ 12 months was: 3.3% ± 1.9%, 5.1% ± 6.7%, 8.0% ± 5.2%, 9.0% ± 8.0, and 6.2% ± 7.8%, respectively, and not substantially different from that observed in previous studies with prolonged dual antiplatelet treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel.

Conclusions

While waiting for the ongoing, large-scale, registries and clinical trials to clarify the few facts and to answer the many questions regarding the risk of bleeding of TT, this treatment should not be denied to patients with an indication for VKA undergoing PCI-S provided that the proper measures and cautions are implemented.

Safety of arthrocentesis and joint injection in patients receiving anticoagulation at therapeutic levels

BACKGROUND

Arthrocentesis and joint injections are commonly performed for both diagnostic and therapeutic indications. Because of safety concerns, there is often reluctance to perform these procedures in patients who are receiving anticoagulation at therapeutic levels. This study was undertaken to determine the safety of arthrocentesis and joint injection performed by physicians from different disciplines in patients who are anticoagulated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 640 arthrocentesis and joint injection procedures performed in 514 anticoagulated patients between 2001 and 2009. We assessed the incidence of early and late clinically significant bleeding in or around a joint, infection, and procedure-related pain. We further compared the incidence of these complications in 456 procedures performed in patients with an international normalized ratio 2.0 or greater and 184 procedures performed in patients with an international normalized ratio less than 2.0.

RESULTS

Only 1 procedure (0.2%) resulted in early, significant, clinical bleeding in the fully anticoagulated group. There was no statistically significant difference in early and late complications between patients who had procedures performed with an international normalized ratio 2.0 or greater and those whose anticoagulation was adjusted to an international normalized ratio less than 2.0.

CONCLUSION

Arthrocentesis and joint injections in patients receiving chronic warfarin therapy with therapeutic international normalized ratio are safe procedures. There does not seem to be a need for reducing the level of anticoagulation before procedures in these patients.