Operator radiation exposure during transradial coronary angiography: Effect of single vs. double catheters

Procedural and clinical performance of dual- versus single-catheter strategy for transradial coronary angiography: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the procedural and clinical performance of dual- versus single-catheter strategy for transradial coronary angiography.

BACKGROUND

The radial artery (RA) is recommended as the vascular access of choice in patients undergoing coronary angiography and intervention. The procedural and clinical performance of dual- versus single-catheter strategy in patients undergoing transradial coronary angiography remains a matter of debate.

METHODS

This is a study-level meta-analysis of randomized trials. The primary outcome was procedure time. The main secondary outcome was fluoroscopy time. Other outcomes of interest were contrast volume, crossover to other catheter strategy and RA spasm.

RESULTS

A total of 2,062 patients (978 randomly assigned to dual-catheter and 1,084 to single-catheter strategy) included in seven trials were available for the quantitative synthesis. A dual-catheter strategy was associated with procedure time (standardized mean difference [95% confidence intervals (CI)], 0.55 [-0.69, 1.78]; p = .32), fluoroscopy time (-0.36 [-2.39, 1.67]; p = .68) and contrast volume (-0.93 [-3.79, 1.94]; p = .44) comparable to a single-catheter strategy. The risk for crossover was lower (risk ratio [95% CI], 0.14 [0.03, 0.70]; p = .025) while the risk for RA spasm was higher (1.81 [1.54, 2.12]; p < .001) among patients assigned to dual- versus single-catheter strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides evidence for a comparable procedural performance of either dual- or single-catheter strategy for transradial coronary angiography. The fewer crossovers with dual-catheter strategy occur at the expense of more frequent radial artery spasm.

Contemporary transradial access practices: Results of the second international survey

OBJECTIVES

To gain insight into current practice of transradial angiography and intervention in the United States and around the world.

BACKGROUND

Transradial access (TRA) has grown worldwide. In a prior survey, there was significant practice variation and there was minimal US participation which limited the generalizability to US operators.

METHODS

We used an internet-based survey software program to solicit input from practicing interventional cardiologists from the United States and around the world. US operators were compared with outside the United States (OUS) operators and respondent-level comparisons were made with the prior survey to assess for temporal changes in practice.

RESULTS

Between August 2016 and January 1, 2017, 125 interventional cardiologists completed the survey representing 91 countries with the United States having 449 (39.9%) respondents. Preprocedure, noninvasive testing for collateral circulation is used more commonly in the United States (54.1%) than around the world (26.6%) but its use has decreased since 2010. In the US, 48.8% of operators never use ultrasound and 92.6% of OUS operators never use it; only 4.4% overall use ultrasound in >50% of cases. Use of bivalirudin has decreased in the US and OUS. Nearly, 30% of operators do not assess for radial artery patency following hemostasis. US respondents used TRA less commonly for primary PCI for STEMI than their global counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

There is wide variation in how TRA procedures are performed including relatively low rates of adherence to practices that are known to improve outcomes. Further education aimed at increasing use of best practices will impact patient outcomes.

Radiation exposure levels according to vascular access sites during PCI : A prospective controlled study

BACKGROUND

We previously showed that using the radial artery access site as opposed to the femoral artery site decreases the radiation exposure of patients during coronary artery interventions. The objective of this study was to compare radiation exposure levels of the operating physician during coronary interventions when incorporating both radial and femoral artery approaches.

METHODS

The study assessed all coronary angioplasties performed in a major metropolitan general hospital. The study design was prospective and observational, in which we measured the radiation exposure of the patient and the operator. Measurements of radiation levels were made using an electronic personal dosimeter (Diamentor® E2-DAP) at the radial and at the femoral artery access sites. An interventional cardiologist operator performed all the percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) using a single-plane angiography unit via both femoral and radial artery approaches.

RESULTS

Data from 252 PCIs were recorded. The mean physician radiation exposure levels from the femoral access site and the right radial access site were 40.5 ± 20.2 µSv and 47.5 ± 26.5 µSv, respectively (p < 0.02). There was a strong correlation between physician and patient radiation exposure levels. However, there was no correlation between patient body mass index and radiation exposure levels.

CONCLUSION

We found significantly higher physician radiation exposure levels with the radial artery than with the femoral artery access site.