Qualitative comparison of coronary angiograms between 4 french catheters with an Advanced Cardiovascular Injection System and 6 french catheters with manual injection

Evaluation of the usefulness of coronary catheters and 4 Fr insertion sets for transradial access coronarography in comparison with catheters and 5 Fr sets

Introduction

Application of transradial arterial access during coronarography, besides pain, means faster patient mobilization and fewer complications. During those procedures, vascular sheaths and 5/6 Fr catheters, and lately 4 Fr catheters, are used.

Aim

To assess the usefulness of 4 Fr catheters and sheaths in comparison to 5 Fr in diagnostic coronarography.

Material and methods

In the period from 5.12.2010 to 27.02.2012, a group of patients who had coronarography with a 4 Fr catheter (n = 20) and a 5 Fr catheter (n = 20) were studied. Technical issues and potential problems related to the use of each catheter were analyzed. Morphology, biochemical parameters, and local complications were analyzed. The assessment included pain intensification during catheter removal and insertion in the VAS/numerical (0–10)/verbal scales and the quality of image obtained during the coronarography.

Results

All the angiograms obtained during all the interventions were of diagnostic value and in invasive cardiologists’ opinions, they did not differ statistically in clarity. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in radiation/fluoroscopy time, amount of contrast medium, or morphological and biochemical parameters. The size of hematomas in the 4 Fr group was 17.55 ±14.6 cm², and in the 5 Fr group 31.07 ±32.11 cm², p = 0.12. The average intensity of pain felt during the intervention/at the time of its removal and insertion in the numerical scale was in the 4 Fr group 0.65 ±0.93/0.55 ±0.94 and in the 5 Fr group 1.88 ±1.64/1.42 ±1.61, p < 0.05.

Conclusions

Application of 4 Fr catheters allows one to perform a diagnostic procedure with a small number of local and hemorrhagic complications comparable with 5 Fr catheters. Due to reduced pain, it is appropriate to continue studies with the use of 4 Fr catheters and sheaths.

Meta-analysis of the effect of automated contrast injection devices versus manual injection and contrast volume on risk of contrast-induced nephropathy

Contrast-sparing devices have been slowly adopted into routine patient care. Randomized trial evidence of automated contrast injectors (ACIs) has not been analyzed to evaluate the true reduction in contrast volume during coronary angiography and intervention. It has been thought that reducing the amount of contrast exposure will result in a simultaneous reduction in the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). Therefore, we sought to synthesize published evidence on contrast-sparing devices, contrast volume, and the incidence of CIN. We searched Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov. The search criteria included ACIs versus manual injection, contrast media volume, and the incidence of CIN. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. The weighted mean difference of contrast volume was calculated using random effects models in RevMan, version 5.4.1, software to derive a summary estimate. A total of 79,694 patients from 10 studies were included (ACI arm, n = 20,099; manual injection arm, n = 59,595). On average, ACIs reduced contrast volume delivery by 45 ml/case (p <0.001, 95% confidence interval -54 to -35). The CIN incidence was significantly reduced by 15%, with an odds ratio of 0.85 (p <0.001, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.93) for those using ACIs compared with manual injection. In conclusion, the use of ACIs in angiography significantly reduces the volume of contrast delivered to the patient and the incidence of CIN.

Tumours associated with BAP1 mutations

BAP1 (BRCA1-Associated Protein 1) was initially identified as a protein that binds to BRCA1. BAP1 is a tumour suppressor that is believed to mediate its effects through chromatin modulation, transcriptional regulation, and possibly via the ubiquitin-proteasome system and the DNA damage response pathway. Germline mutations of BAP1 confer increased susceptibility for the development of several tumours, including uveal melanoma, epithelioid atypical Spitz tumours, cutaneous melanoma, and mesothelioma. However, the complete tumour spectrum associated with germline BAP1 mutations is not yet known. Somatic BAP1 mutations are seen in cutaneous melanocytic tumours (epithelioid atypical Spitz tumours and melanoma), uveal melanoma, mesothelioma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and other tumours. Here, we review the current state of knowledge about the functional roles of BAP1, and summarise data on tumours associated with BAP1 mutations. Awareness of these tumours will help pathologists and clinicians to identify patients with a high likelihood of harbouring germline or somatic BAP1 mutations. We recommend that pathologists consider testing for BAP1 mutations in epithelioid atypical Spitz tumours and uveal melanomas, or when other BAP1-associated tumours occur in individual patients. Tumour tissues may be screened for BAP1 mutations/loss/inactivation by immunohistochemistry (IHC) (demonstrated by loss of nuclear staining in tumour cells). Confirmatory sequencing may be considered in tumours that exhibit BAP1 loss by IHC and in those with equivocal IHC results. If a BAP1 mutation is confirmed in a tumour, the patient's treating physician should be informed of the possibility of a BAP1 germline mutation, so they can consider whether genetic counselling and further testing of the patient and investigation of their family is appropriate. Recognition and evaluation of larger numbers of BAP1-associated tumours will also be necessary to facilitate identification of additional distinct clinico-pathological characteristics or other genotype-phenotype correlations that may have prognostic and management implications.