Radiation exposure during coronary angiography via transradial or transfemoral approaches when performed by experienced operators

Feasibility and safety of left distal trans-radial approach for coronary angiogram and percutaneous coronary intervention in a center in Hong Kong

INTRODUCTION

The left distal trans-radial approach is not only more convenient for the operator than the conventional left forearm radial approach, it is also more comfortable for right-hand patients during the peri-procedural period. Comparing with conventional approach, it has lower bleeding risk, less pain and lower risk of radial artery occlusion. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and the safety of left distal trans-radial approach for coronary angiogram and percutaneous coronary intervention in Hong Kong Chinese who had smaller body built and therefore smaller radial arterial size.

METHOD

In this single-center prospective study, 72 patients undergoing elective coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention were recruited from August to October 2018. All right-handed patients aged 18 or above undergoing elective procedures during the period were recruited. Exclusion criteria were non-palpable radial arteries, pregnancies, incapability to consent, abnormal Allen's test, and emergency procedures. Sixty patients (42 males, age ranging from 45 to 86 years old) were recruited and underwent the procedures via left distal radial approach. The measurements during access establishment, the procedure details, complications, patients' satisfaction, and arterial occlusion rate were studied.

RESULTS

The procedures with left distal radial approach were successful in 51 patients (85%). Crossover rate to conventional right radial approach was 15% (nine patients). Among successful cases, the mean patients' satisfaction was 8.32/10 and the mean pain score was 1.6/10. Post-procedural radial artery occlusion was not encountered.

CONCLUSION

Left distal radial approach is a feasible alternative for patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention in Hong Kong Chinese patients. It provides good comfortability with minimal pain in right-handed patients. The risk of radial artery occlusion is minimal.

Reduction in Primary Operator Radiation Dose Exposure During Coronary Angioplasty Using Radiation Absorbing Drape

Background Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involves the use of ionizing radiation and is a common procedure in a cardiac catheterization suite. The RADPAD® surgical drape (Worldwide Innovations & Technologies, Inc., Lenexa, KS) has been developed to reduce scatter radiation exposure to primary operators during routine PCI procedures. This study aims to assess the efficacy of RADPAD drapes in reducing radiation dose in the catheterization laboratory. Methods This was a single-center, prospective, observational study that aimed to compare the primary operator dose received with and without the use of a commercially available shield (RADPAD) during PCI. A total of 53 consecutive patients undergoing PCI were randomized in a 1:1 pattern to receive either the RADPAD (study group) or no RADPAD (control group). Standard shielding and personal protective equipment were used. Radiation exposure to the primary operator, total fluoroscopy time, number of cine acquisitions, and air kerma were recorded for each procedure. A one-way ANOVA calculator, including the Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) test, was used to compare the mean values of radiation exposure. Scatterplot analysis and linear regression slopes of dose relative to air kerma were performed. All shields were reused once only. Results The study compared radiation exposure during PCI procedures between patients who received radiation attenuation devices (RADPAD) and those who did not. The RADPAD group had 30 patients, while the NO RADPAD group had 23 patients. There was a significant difference in the number of coronary angiography and single/multi-vessel PCI procedures between the two groups. There was no significant difference in procedural time or air kerma dose between the groups, but the RADPAD group had a significantly lower radiation dose (mean dose of 3.679 mrem) compared to the NO RADPAD group (mean dose of 8.12 mrem) (p < 0.00001). The primary operator dose per unit of air kerma was also significantly lower in the RADPAD group. Overall, the use of RADPAD resulted in a significant reduction in radiation exposure during PCI procedures. Conclusion The present study provides further evidence for the efficacy of using radiation-absorbing drapes (RADPAD) in reducing primary operator radiation dose exposure during coronary angioplasty. The equipment for radiation dose reduction of patients also reduces the radiation dose of medical staff. Therefore, the use of RADPAD is recommended as a safe and effective measure for reducing operator radiation dose exposure during coronary angioplasty.

Transradial versus transfemoral arterial access in DEB-TACE for hepatocellular carcinoma

Objectives

Transradial access has become increasingly popular in body interventional procedures but has not been ubiquitously adapted. This retrospective study compares the efficacy of this approach versus transfemoral access in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who underwent drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE).

Materials and Methods

A total of 130 HCC patients underwent 146 DEB-TACE procedures within our institution from June 2015 to May 2020. About 90 and 56 procedures were logged for the transradial and transfemoral cohorts, respectively. Peak skin dose, fluoroscopy time, administered contrast volume, total procedure time, and equipment cost data for each procedure were reviewed to evaluate for statistical differences between the two groups.

Results

All 146 cases were technically successful without major complications or access failures in either group. No statistical differences were present between the two access groups in regards to peak skin dose or fluoroscopy time. Transradial access recorded a significantly higher contrast volume (P < 0.05), and a significantly longer procedural time than transfemoral access (P < 0.01). However, transradial access also displayed a significantly lower procedural equipment cost (P < 0.01) between the two groups.

Conclusion

Transradial DEB-TACE has similar trends to transfemoral DEB-TACE in several pertinent radiation parameters and is also significantly more cost-efficacious. The results of this investigation suggest the consideration of transradial access whenever viable as an alternative to transfemoral access in the DEB-TACE treatment of HCC patients.

Comparison of radiation exposure and clinical outcomes between transradial and transfemoral diagnostic cerebral approaches: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To identify and compare patient and procedural variables that are associated with a high radiation dose exposure and worse clinical outcomes between transradial arterial (TRA) and transfemoral arterial (TFA) approaches.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis.

SETTING

A community hospital during the initial phase of adopting a TRA-first approach.

PARTICIPANTS

A resultant 215 subjects who only underwent diagnostic cerebral angiograms (DCA) after excluding all therapeutic procedures and patients under 18 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Only DCA from 1 May 2018 to 31 January 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We compared radiation exposure parameters (total fluoroscopy time (FT), total radiation dose (TD) and dose area product (DAP), number of vessels injected and Patient-Reported Global Health Physical and Mental Outcome Scores (PROGHS) at 30 days postprocedure between groups.

RESULTS

FT was significantly greater in TRA compared with TFA (p<0.001). In addition, TRA had a significantly higher TD (p=0.002) and DAP (p=0.005) when compared with TFA. Analysis of only 6-vessel DCAs also showed that TRA had a significantly higher FT, DAP and TD in comparison to TFA. Despite observing a longer FT in TRA, results showed fewer vessels injected and a notably lower success rate in acquiring a 6-vessel DCA using the TRA. Further analysis of the effect of vessel number on FT using general linear models showed that with every increase of one vessel, the FT increases by 2.2 min for TRA (p<0.001; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.36) and by 1.3 min for TFA (p<0.001; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.83). There was no significant difference between groups in PROGHS mental and physical t-scores at 30 days postprocedure, even though our cohort showed a significantly greater percentage of TRA procedures done in the outpatient setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting a TRA first approach for DCAs may be initially associated with a higher radiation dose for the patient. Better strategies and devices are needed to mitigate this effect.

The Impact of Using a Larger Forearm Artery for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions on Hand Strength: A Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: The exact mechanism underlying hand strength reduction (HSR) after coronary angiography with transradial access (TRA) or transulnar access (TUA) remains unknown. (2) Methods: This study aimed to assess the impact of using a larger or smaller forearm artery access on the incidence of HSR at 30-day follow-up. This was a prospective randomized trial including patients referred for elective coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention. Based on the pre-procedural ultrasound examination, the larger artery was identified. Patients were randomized to larger radial artery (RA) or ulnar artery (UA) or a group with smaller RA/UA. The primary endpoint was the incidence of HSR, while the secondary endpoint was the incidence of subjective HSR, paresthesia, and any hand pain. (3) Results: We enrolled 200 patients (107 men and 93 women; mean age 68 ± 8 years) between 2017 and 2018. Due to crossover between TRA and TUA, there were 57% (n = 115) patients in larger RA/UA and 43% (n = 85) patients in smaller RA/UA. HSR occurred in 29% (n = 33) patients in larger RA/UA and 47% (n = 40) patients in smaller RA/UA (p = 0.008). Subjective HSR was observed in 10% (n = 12) patients in larger RA/UA and 21% (n = 18) patients in smaller RA/UA (p = 0.03). Finally, paresthesia was noted in 7% (n = 8) patients in larger RA/UA and 22% (n = 15) in smaller RA/UA (p = 002). Independent factors of HSR were larger RA/UA (OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24-0.82; p < 0.01) and the use of TRA (OR 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01-34; p < 0.05). (4) Conclusions: The use of a larger artery as vascular access was associated with a lower incidence of HSR at 30-day follow-up.

Experience with the novel unifemoral parallel sheath technique in percutaneous intervention of chronic total coronary occlusions

Background

Percutaneous interventions to address chronic coronary occlusions (CTO-PCI) often require simultaneous ipsi- and contralateral coronary injections. Although radial access is increasingly popular, bifemoral artery access is still the preferred choice of CTO operators.

The aim of this case series is to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the unifemoral parallel sheath technique, which avoids two puncture sites, increases patient comfort, and improves procedure ergonomics.

It offers rapid second access to the femoral artery adjacent to the first sheath as well as closure by unilateral manual compression without or with 1 or 2 vascular closure devices.

Results

We retrospectively evaluated the procedure results in 90 consecutive CTO patients where an ipsilateral parallel sheath access was considered. Placement of the second sheath uneventfully failed in two because of severe femoral calcification and narrowing. In 96.6%, the first sheath was 7 F (3.4% 6F), while the second sheath was 4 F in 22.7%, 5 F in 64.7%, and 6 or 7 F in 11.4% each.

No major complications nor severe bleeding events occurred, and the mean drop of hemoglobin was low (0.6 g/dL ± 0.86).

Conclusion

In CTO-PCI requiring contralateral coronary injections or the retrograde technique, the ipsilateral parallel sheath technique might be a feasible alternative to the standard bifemoral or femoral-radial access.

Transradial and Transfemoral Approach in Patients with Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

The relationship between periprocedural complications and the type of vascular access in patients with prior history of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) is less investigated than in the overall group of patients treated with PCI. The aim of the current study was to assess the relationship between the type of vascular access and selected periprocedural complications in a group of patients with prior history of CABG and treated with PCIs. Based on a Polish nationwide registry of interventional cardiology procedures called ORPKI, the authors analyzed 536,826 patients treated with PCI between 2014 and 2018. The authors extracted 32,225 cases with prior history of CABG. Then, patients with femoral and radial access as well as right and left radial access were compared. This comparison was proceeded by propensity score matching (PSM). After PSM, a multifactorial analysis revealed that patients treated with PCI from femoral access were significantly more often related to periprocedural deaths (odds ratio [OR]: 1.79; 95%, confidence interval [CI]: 1.1–3.0, p = 0.02) and cardiac arrests (OR: 1.98; 95%, CI: 1.38–2.87, p < 0.001). After inclusion of the Killip class grade and the occurrence of cardiac arrests before PCI into the PSM, the significance remained for procedural related cardiac arrests (OR: 1.55; 95%, CI: 1.07–2.28, p = 0.022]). However, a comparison of right and left radial access showed no significant differences between procedure-related complications. It has been confirmed that there is a statistical association between femoral access (compared to radial access) and a higher rate of periprocedural cardiac arrests in patients with prior history of CABG treated with PCI.

Is trans-radial approach related to an increased risk of radiation exposure in patients who underwent diagnostic coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention? (The SAKARYA study)

OBJECTIVE

It is still debatable whether diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) increase radiation exposure when performed via radial approach as compared to femoral approach. This question was investigated in this study by comparison of dose-area product (DAP), reference air kerma (RAK), and fluoroscopy time (FT) among radial and femoral approaches.

METHODS

All coronary procedures between November 2015 and November 2017 were assessed; and 4215 coronary procedures were enrolled in the study. Patients with bifurcation, chronic total occlusion, cardiogenic shock, or prior coronary artery bypass surgery were excluded. These 4215 procedures were evaluated for three different categories: diagnostic CA (Group I), PCI in patients with stable angina (Group II), and PCI in patients with ACS (Group III).

RESULTS

Age was significantly higher in the femoral arm of all groups. Among patients in the radial arm of Groups I and II, males were over-represented. Therefore, a multiple linear regression analysis with stepwise method was performed. After adjusting these clinical confounders, there was no significant difference with regard to DAP, RAK, and FT between femoral and radial access in Group I. In contrast, PCI via radial access was significantly associated with increased DAP, RAK, and FT in Groups II and III.

CONCLUSION

In spite of an increased experience with trans-radial approach, PCI of coronary lesions via radial route was associated with a relatively small but significant radiation exposure in our study. Compared to femoral access, diagnostic CA via radial access was not related to an increased radiation exposure.

Predictors of Universal Catheter Failure in Transradial Coronary Angiography

BACKGROUND

Use of a universal diagnostic catheter may decrease procedural time and catheter-exchange related spasm when compared with a dual-catheter strategy. The aim of this study was to identify preprocedural predictors of failure to complete a coronary angiogram with a universal catheter alone.

METHODS

Consecutive patients (n = 782) who underwent a right transradial/transulnar coronary angiogram with a single operator were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariable predictors of failure to complete the procedure with a universal catheter alone were identified using logistic regression analysis and presented as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Of the study population (n = 558), a total of 216 (38.7%) required exchange to a coronary-specific catheter (44.4% for right coronary artery alone, 25.5% for left coronary artery alone, 30.1% for both) and 342 (61.3%) underwent angiography with a universal catheter alone. Patients who required a catheter exchange were more likely to have the following characteristics compared with patients who underwent an angiogram with a universal catheter alone: age >75 years (27.3% vs 16.4%; P<.01), female sex (34.3% vs 23.1%; P<.01), diabetes mellitus (50.0% vs 38.3%; P<.01), hypertension (88.0% vs 74.6%; P<.001), and chronic kidney disease (29.2% vs 17.8%; P<.01). After multivariable adjustment, age ≫75 years (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.21-3.04), female sex (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.20-3.14), hypertension (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.22-3.57), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.46) predicted failure of a universal catheter alone to complete angiography.

CONCLUSION

Consideration may be given to use an initial dual-catheter strategy if one or more of the following are present: elderly age, female sex, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease.

Comparison of Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches for Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Intervention in Patients with Coronary Bypass Grafts

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention in patients with coronary artery bypass grafts in terms of volume of radiographic contrast administered during cardiac catheterization, fluoroscopy time, and total procedure time.

BACKGROUND

The transradial access has been increasingly used as an alternative to transfemoral. Several studies demonstrated that such access is associated with lower rates of vascular and bleeding complications. Although coronary artery bypass graft patients comprise a significant portion of the coronary artery disease population, this subpopulation was often excluded or underrepresented in transradial access studies.

METHODS

Single center, retrospective cohort study. In the study period, all patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery and had received cardiac catheterization at our institution were included in the study population.

RESULTS

A total of 2153 patients were included in the study. From these, 1937 were performed by femoral artery and 216 by transradial approach. Compared to the transfemoral approach, transradial access was associated with lower contrast use (136.3 ± 74.4 ml vs. 122.8 ± 59.1 ml, p = 0.035) and longer fluoroscopy time (13.9 ± 25.6 min vs. 15.9 ± 14.3 min, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic and interventional catheterization through the transradial approach in patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery was associated with less contrast amount used and longer fluoroscopy time compared to the transfemoral approach. The transradial approach was also associated with lower crossover rates and less vascular complications.

Incidence and Clinical Course of Limb Dysfunction Post Cardiac Catheterization - A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed the available literature on limb dysfunction after transradial access (TRA) or transfemoral access (TFA) cardiac catheterization. Methods and Results: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies evaluating any transradial or transfemoral procedures and limb function outcomes. Data were extracted and results were narratively synthesized with similar treatment arms. The TRA group included 15 studies with 3,616 participants and of these 3 reported nerve damage with a combined incidence of 0.16% and 4 reported sensory loss, tingling and numbness with a pooled incidence of 1.61%. Pain after TRA was the most common form of limb dysfunction (7.77%) reported in 3 studies. The incidence of hand dysfunction defined as disability, grip strength change, power loss or neuropathy was low at 0.49%. Although radial artery occlusion (RAO) was not a primary endpoint for this review, it was observed in 3.57% of the participants in a total of 8 studies included. The TFA group included 4 studies with 15,903,894 participants; the rates of peripheral neuropathy were 0.004%, sensory neuropathy caused by local groin injury and retroperitoneal hematomas were 0.04% and 0.17%, respectively, and motor deficit caused by femoral and obturator nerve damage was 0.13%.

CONCLUSIONS

Limb dysfunction post cardiac catheterization is rare, but patients may have nonspecific sensory and motor complaints that resolve over a period of time.

Reduced periprocedural mortality and bleeding rates of radial approach in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Propensity score analysis of data from the ORPKI Polish National Registry

AIMS

We sought to evaluate bleeding complications and periprocedural outcomes of the radial approach (RA) as compared to the femoral approach (FA) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in "real-world" patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study group consisted of 22,812 consecutive patients with STEMI treated with PCI and stent implantation between January 2014 and June 2015 in 151 tertiary invasive cardiology centres in Poland (the ORPKI Polish National Registry). Patients treated using the RA and FA were compared using a propensity score analysis to avoid possible selection bias. The analysis was carried out in an "as-treated" manner. The FA was used in 9,334 (40.9%) and the RA in 13,478 (59.1%) patients. After propensity score matching, a higher total amount of contrast (191.8±8.0 vs. 174.8±68.8 ml; p=0.001) and lower radiation doses (1,279.5±1,346.3 vs. 1,182.6±887 mGy; p=0.02) were reported in FA. More access-site-related bleeding complications after both angiography (0.17% vs. 0.02%; p=0.004) and PCI (0.23% vs. 0.09%; p=0.049) were reported in the FA group. Periprocedural death (1.94% vs. 0.93%; p=0.001) was more common after PCI performed with the FA.

CONCLUSIONS

The radial approach was associated with a lower incidence of periprocedural death in STEMI patients as well as a significant reduction of bleeding complications at the access site.

Video motion analysis in live coronary angiography differentiates levels of experience and provides a novel method of skill assessment

AIMS

Video motion analysis (VMA) uses fluoroscopic sequences to derive catheter and guidewire movement, and is able to calculate 2D catheter-tip path length (PL) on the basis of frame-by-frame pixel coordinates. The objective of this study was to validate VMA in coronary angiography as a method of skill assessment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-seven coronary interventions performed by 10 low- (<1,000 cases; group A), five medium- (1,000-4,000; group B) and six high- (>4,000; group C) experience-volume cardiologists were prospectively recorded and analysed using VMA software. Total PL was calculated and procedure, fluoroscopy times, and radiation dose were recorded. Comparisons of PL were made between groups of experience. Groups A, B and C performed 24, 14 and 6 paired (right and left coronary) cannulations, respectively. Calculation of PL was possible in all recorded cases and significantly correlated with procedure (p=<0.001, rho=0.827) and fluoroscopy times (p=<0.001, rho=0.888). Median total path length (combined right and left coronaries) was significantly shorter in group C which used 3,836 pixels of movement (IQR: 3,003-4,484) vs. 10,556 (7,242-31,408) in group A (p=<0.001) and 8,725 (5,187-15,150) in group B (p=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

VMA in coronary angiography is feasible and PL is able to differentiate levels of experience.

Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention via Transradial Versus Transfemoral Approach in Bypass Grafts

We compared the efficacy and safety of the transradial approach percutaneous coronary intervention (TRA-PCI) and transfemoral approach percutaneous coronary intervention (TFA-PCI) for bypass grafts lesions. Patients (n = 184) were retrospectively enrolled. Less contrast was used during the procedure in the TRA group than in the TFA group, 201.5 (45.5) mL versus 221.5 (49.1) mL, P = .004, although fluoroscopy time was longer in the TRA group, 22.5 (6.3) minutes versus 20.3 (6.1) minutes; P = .017. The incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACEs) was lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group (3.1% vs 8.8%, respectively, P = .111). The incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 and 5 bleeding (0% vs 5.5%, respectively, P = .022) was significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. For 1-year outcomes, there was no difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (7.5% vs 9.9%, respectively, P = .569). In conclusion, TRA-PCI was associated with a lower rate of in-hospital NACEs mainly attributed to lower rates of major bleeding. The TRA-PCI showed comparable feasibility and efficacy in bypass grafts as compared with TFA-PCI when carried out by experienced operators.

Reduction in operator radiation exposure during transradial coronary procedures using a simple lead rectangle

Objectives

Transradial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces procedural complications however, there are concerns regarding the potential for increased exposure to ionizing radiation to the primary operator. We evaluated the efficacy of a lead-attenuator in reducing radiation exposure during transradial PCI.

Methods and results

This was a non-randomized, prospective, observational study in which 52 consecutive patients were assigned to either standard operator protection (n = 26) or the addition of the lead attenuator across their abdomen/pelvis (n = 26). In the attenuator group patients were relatively older with a higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (67.9 vs 58.7 p = 0.0292 and 12% vs 7.6% p < 0.001 respectively). Despite similar average fluoroscopy times (12.3 ± 9.8 min vs. 9.3 ± 5.4 min, p = 0.175) and average examination doses (111866 ± 80790 vs. 91,268 ± 47916 Gycm², p = 0.2688), the total radiation exposure to the operator, at the thyroid level, was significantly lower when the lead-attenuator was utilized (20.2% p < 0.0001) as compared to the control group. Amongst the 26 patients assigned to the lead-attenuator, there was a significant reduction in measured radiation of 94.5% (p < 0.0001), above as compared to underneath the lead attenuator.

Conclusions

Additional protection with the use of a lead rectangle-attenuator significantly lowered radiation exposure to the primary operator, which may confer long-term benefits in reducing radiation-induced injury.

Advances in knowledge

This is the first paper to show that a simple lead attenuator almost completely reduced the scattered radiation at very close proximity to the patient and should be considered as part of the standard equipment within catheterization laboratories.

Image noise reduction technology reduces radiation in a radial-first cardiac catheterization laboratory

BACKGROUND

Transradial coronary angiography (TRA) has been associated with increased radiation doses. We hypothesized that contemporary image noise reduction technology would reduce radiation doses in the cardiac catheterization laboratory in a typical clinical setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis of 400 consecutive patients who underwent diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterizations in a predominantly TRA laboratory with traditional fluoroscopy (N=200) and a new image noise reduction fluoroscopy system (N=200). The primary endpoint was radiation dose (mGy cm²). Secondary endpoints were contrast dose, fluoroscopy times, number of cineangiograms, and radiation dose by operator between the two study periods. Radiation was reduced by 44.7% between the old and new cardiac catheterization laboratory (75.8mGycm²±74.0 vs. 41.9mGycm²±40.7, p<0.0001). Radiation was reduced for both diagnostic procedures (45.9%, p<0.0001) and interventional procedures (37.7%, p<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in radiation dose between individual operators (p=0.84). In multivariate analysis, radiation dose remained significantly decreased with the use of the new system (p<0.0001) and was associated with weight (p<0.0001), previous coronary artery bypass grafting (p<0.0007) and greater than 3 stents used (p<0.0004). TRA was used in 90% of all cases in both periods. Compared with a transfemoral approach (TFA), TRA was not associated with higher radiation doses (p=0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Image noise reduction technology significantly reduces radiation dose in a contemporary radial-first cardiac catheterization clinical practice.

Radiation Exposures Associated With Radial and Femoral Coronary Interventions

OPINION STATEMENT

The volume of cardiac diagnostic procedures involving the use of ionizing radiation has increased rapidly in recent years, and the radiation exposure experienced by patients undergoing any medical imaging procedure has recently obtained a growing attention. Transradial (TR) access is being increasingly used worldwide for diagnostic coronary angiography (CA), and percutaneous coronary interventions, since it offers several benefits as compared to transfemoral (TF) access, such as by reducing hemostasis time and vascular complications, increased patient comfort, reduced hospital stay, and lower cost. In contrast, TR CA is thought to be associated with increased radiation exposure parameters compared with the traditional TF access. Although experienced operators may almost counterbalance this shortcoming, the increase in radiation exposure associated with TR approach seems not to be present in most clinical settings.

Controversies in the Management of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Transradial Versus Transfemoral Approach

This article discusses the controversies surrounding the use of transradial versus transfemoral approaches in the management of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, beginning with a review of the benefits of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this population. The unanswered questions about the mechanism underlying the mortality benefit of transradial PCI are discussed, concluding with recommendations for safe and effective strategies for adoption of the transradial approach to optimize outcomes in these high-risk patients.

Ionizing radiation exposure in interventional cardiology: current radiation protection practice of invasive cardiology operators in Lithuania

Ionizing radiation management is among the most important safety issues in interventional cardiology. Multiple radiation protection measures allow the minimization of x-ray exposure during interventional procedures. Our purpose was to assess the utilization and effectiveness of radiation protection and optimization techniques among interventional cardiologists in Lithuania. Interventional cardiologists of five cardiac centres were interviewed by anonymized questionnaire, addressing personal use of protective garments, shielding, table/detector positioning, frame rate (FR), resolution, field of view adjustment and collimation. Effective patient doses were compared between operators who work with and without x-ray optimization. Thirty one (68.9%) out of 45 Lithuanian interventional cardiologists participated in the survey. Protective aprons were universally used, but not the thyroid collars; 35.5% (n  =  11) operators use protective eyewear and 12.9% (n  =  4) wear radio-protective caps; 83.9% (n  =  26) use overhanging shields, 58.1% (n  =  18)-portable barriers; 12.9% (n  =  4)-abdominal patient's shielding; 35.5% (n  =  11) work at a high table position; 87.1% (n  =  27) keep an image intensifier/receiver close to the patient; 58.1% (n  =  18) reduce the fluoroscopy FR; 6.5% (n  =  2) reduce the fluoro image detail resolution; 83.9% (n  =  26) use a 'store fluoro' option; 41.9% (N  =  13) reduce magnification for catheter transit; 51.6% (n  =  16) limit image magnification; and 35.5% (n  =  11) use image collimation. Median effective patient doses were significantly lower with x-ray optimization techniques in both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Many of the ionizing radiation exposure reduction tools and techniques are underused by a considerable proportion of interventional cardiology operators. The application of basic radiation protection tools and techniques effectively reduces ionizing radiation exposure and should be routinely used in practice.

Analysis of safety outcomes for radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention from a large clinical registry

Objective

Using a multisite, contemporary registry of 58 862 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in a national healthcare system, the present study compared radial access with femoral access on safety and efficacy outcomes.

Methods

This is a real-world, large-scale, retrospective study using clinical data from a 137-hopsital System and reported to a multisite clinical registry. All patients undergoing a cardiac catheterisation procedure were included in this database. The primary end points were major bleeding and radiation exposure. Multivariate logistic regression modelling was used to compare access groups.

Results

Femoral access (n=55 729) accounted for 94.7% and radial access (n=3137) for 5.3%. There were fewer bleeding events in the radial group (n=28, 0.9%) than those in the femoral group (n=1234, 2.2%) in the unadjusted analysis. For patients receiving bivalirudin, bleeding occurred in 337 patients (1.6%), and there was no difference in rates between radial access (n=13, 1.1%) and femoral access (n=327, 1.7%) (OR=0.65, CI 0.40 to 1.22, p=0.19). The radial technique resulted in higher radiation exposure in each case, but particularly for procedures involving prior coronary artery bypass graft history and non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction patients. The mean fluoroscopy time among femoral access procedures was 15.68 min (SD=11.7) versus 19.86 min (SD=13.8) for radial access procedures (p<0.0001).

Conclusions

Radial access for PCI is associated with higher fluoroscopy times but not with less major bleeding when bivalirudin is used. Our analysis, combined with other study findings, suggest that the safest route for PCI may be the use of femoral access with bivalirudin.

Comparison of the patient radiation exposure during coronary angiography and angioplasty procedures using trans-radial and trans-femoral access

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac catheterization procedure through the trans-radial access (TRA) have shown many clinical advantages over the trans-femoral (TFA), but despite its advantages, there are serious concerns regarding higher possible radiation dose for the patients and operators in TRA. This study was planned to compare the patients' radiation dose associated with TRA and TFA during coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA).

METHODS

Of 700 candidates for angiography, 326 patients were entered the study. All the procedures were carried out by one interventional cardiologist employing the same angiography unit in Aalinasab hospital and the patients' dose area product (DAP), air kerma (AK), fluoroscopy time (FT) and cine film time (CFT) were then determined in both access groups (TRA,TFA) in CA, PTCA and CA+PTCA procedures.

RESULTS

The mean FT, CFT and AK values in both TRA & TFA groups were the same in all procedures (P>0.05). The mean DAP in CA+PTCA procedures was 6704.01±3243.23 µGym(2) in femoral access compare with 5647.46±2797.74 µGym(2) in radial access, which were significantly less than that in TFA with P= 0.02.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the results obtained in this study, no differences were found in patients' radiation dose in both access groups, therefore with regard to comparatively more clinical advantages associated with the Trans-radial access technique it might be a good substitute for Trans-femoral access.

Rebirth of left radial artery access: could this be the 'right' radial artery?

Cardiac catheterization has several risks, notably which include bleeding, stroke and death. The transradial (TR) approach to catheterization is associated with a lower bleeding risk. The right radial approach is the default method in most laboratories and the left radial artery (LRA) serves as the bail-out approach. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of transfemoral and TR access routes. The authors envisage an increased adoption of the LRA approach, due to the anatomical superiority and ease of catheter engagement afforded by this approach. The authors discuss ways to increase operator ease for LRA in the laboratory and propose a novel way to improve LRA work-flow.

The Transradial Learning Curve and Volume-Outcome Relationship

This article discusses how learning curves correlate with learning in transradial catheterization. Although learning curves exist in the conversion to transradial approaches, current percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures are so safe that only surrogate end points such as contrast usage and x-ray exposure show learning effects. Using these surrogates, a learning curve of 30 to 50 patients seems typical to transition cardiologists from transfemoral to transradial PCI. This transition occurs with the immediate benefit of reduced vascular complications and bleeding and without loss of overall procedural success. These measures of safety during learning exist despite difference of procedural volumes.

Radiation safety and vascular access: attitudes among cardiologists worldwide

OBJECTIVES

To determine opinions and perceptions of interventional cardiologists on the topic of radiation and vascular access choice.

BACKGROUND

Transradial approach for cardiac catheterization has been increasing in popularity worldwide. There is evidence that transradial access (TRA) may be associated with increasing radiation doses compared to transfemoral access (TFA).

METHODS

We distributed a questionnaire to collect opinions of interventional cardiologists around the world.

RESULTS

Interventional cardiologists (n=5332) were contacted by email to complete an on-line survey from September to October 2013. The response rate was 20% (n=1084). TRA was used in 54% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). Most TRAs (80%) were performed with right radial access (RRA). Interventionalists perceived that TRA was associated with higher radiation exposure compared to TFA and that RRA was associated with higher radiation exposure that left radial access (LRA). Older interventionalists were more likely to use radiation protection equipment and those who underwent radiation safety training gave more importance to ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable). Nearly half the respondents stated they would perform more TRA if the radiation exposure was similar to TFA. While interventionalists in the United States placed less importance to certain radiation protective equipment, European operators were more concerned with physician and patient radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventionalists worldwide reported higher perceived radiation doses with TRA compared to TFA and RRA compared to LRA. Efforts should be directed toward encouraging consistent radiation safety training. Major investment and application of novel radiation protection tools and radiation dose reduction strategies should be pursued.

Reducing radiation exposure during invasive coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions implementing a simple four-step protocol

BACKGROUND

With an increasing number of complex and repeated percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), radiation-induced hazards for patients and operators remain an important issue in fluoroscopy-guided procedures. Our objective was to evaluate radiation exposure during coronary angiographic procedures and assess the efficacy of a four-step program to reduce radiation exposure during coronary angiography (CAG) and PCI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective single-center analysis was performed in patients undergoing CAG or PCI in the first 6 months of 2012 vs. the first 6 months of 2014 (n = 3,107 procedures). During 2013, a four-step protocol was established in our hospital. It contained measures to reduce radiation exposure, including a frame rate reduction from 15 to 7.5 frames per second, the use of fluoroscopy storage, strict use of beam collimation, and repeat training on radiation safety. After adjustment for confounding variables, a dose-area product (DAP) reduction of 54.2% was observed subsequent to implementation of the four-step protocol. Independent predictors of DAP were age [odds ratio (OR) 1.01], body surface area (OR 5.47), prior coronary artery bypass grafting (OR 1.44), radial access (OR 1.16), PCI (OR 2.36), female gender (OR 0.91), and the implementation of the four-step program (OR 0.46).

CONCLUSION

A simple four-step protocol led to a significant reduction in radiation exposure in diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures without significant drawbacks in image quality. Hence, radiation safety programs are of paramount importance and should be established to improve patient and operator safety with regard to radiation-induced hazards.

Impact of guidewire selection and operator expertise on radiation exposure in transradial angiography

Background

Several studies have implied that the time of radiation exposure for patients and operators during the transradial approach for coronary angiography (TRA) is associated with the use of different guidewire or catheter and operator’s finesse. This study aimed to assess the effects of non-hydrophilic or hydrophilic guidewire and operator expertise on fluoroscopy time and procedure time of TRA and further effects on the procedure safety.

Methods

A total of 1035 consecutive patients undergoing TRA were recruited prospectively and respectively divided into non-hydrophilic guidewire and hydrophilic guidewire group, or well-experienced group and less-experienced group. The primary endpoints were fluoroscopy time and procedure time. Secondary endpoints included contrast volume, cost, guidewire exchange, switchover and complications.

Results

TRA by non-hydrophilic guidewire group showed shorter fluoroscopy time and procedure time compared with hydrophilic guidewire group, similar results were found between well-experienced group and less-experienced group. Moreover, using of non-hydrophilic guidewire significantly reduced the incidence of hematoma and abnormal guidewie advancement, well-experienced group showed less dosage of contrast volume, lower incidence of radial artery spasm and frequency of guidewire exchange.

Conclusions

TRA by non-hydrophilic guidewire and well-experienced operator can decrease radiation exposure of patients and operators through reducing the fluoroscopy time and procedure time and further increase procedure safety. These will contribute to the optimization of TRA procedure and promote its widely application.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13019-014-0194-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Transradial percutaneous coronary interventions in acute coronary syndrome

Transradial access (TRA) is becoming increasingly used worldwide for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after acute coronary syndromes (ACS). TRA compared with transfemoral access has been noted to improve clinical outcomes in clinical trials and large registry cohort studies. However, much of the benefits of TRA PCI are noted in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI, where TRA PCI has been associated with reductions in major bleeding events and potentially lower short- and long-term mortality rates. Although much less data exist for TRA PCI in unstable angina and/or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, similar reductions in bleeding and mortality have not been consistently described. Differences in outcome benefit with TRA PCI among various ACS subtypes may be attributable to the potentially increased inherent risk of periprocedural bleeding in STEMI compared with unstable angina and/or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. Pre- and intra-procedural factors associated with STEMI treatment, such as use of pharmacoinvasive therapy and aggressive antithrombotic regimens likely increase bleeding risk in patients. In conclusion, this review describes the evidence for TRA PCI across the spectrum of ACS and highlights why differences in clinical benefit may exist among ACS subtypes.

Effectiveness of fluorography versus cineangiography at reducing radiation exposure during diagnostic coronary angiography

Coronary angiography is the gold standard for defining obstructive coronary disease. However, radiation exposure remains an unwanted hazard. Patients referred for coronary angiography with abdominal circumference<45 inches and glomerular filtration rate>60 ml/min were randomized to the fluorography (n=25) or cineangiography (n=25) group. Patients in the fluorography group underwent coronary angiography using retrospectively stored fluorography with repeat injection under cineangiography only when needed for better resolution per operator's discretion. Patients in the cineangiography group underwent coronary angiography using routine cineangiography. The primary end point was patient radiation exposure measured by radiochromic film. Secondary end points included the radiation output measurement of kerma-area product and air kerma at the interventional reference point (Ka,r) and operator radiation exposure measured by a dosimeter. Patient radiation exposure (158.2 mGy [76.5 to 210.2] vs 272.5 mGy [163.3 to 314.0], p=0.001), kerma-area product (1,323 μGy·m2 [826 to 1,765] vs 3,451 μGy·m2 [2,464 to 4,818], p<0.001), and Ka,r (175 mGy [112 to 252] vs 558 mGy [313 to 621], p<0.001) were significantly lower in the fluorography compared with cineangiography group (42%, 62%, and 69% relative reduction, respectively). Operator radiation exposure trended in the same direction, although statistically nonsignificant (fluorography 2.35 μGy [1.24 to 6.30] vs cineangiography 5.03 μGy [2.48 to 7.80], p=0.059). In conclusion, the use of fluorography in a select group of patients during coronary angiography, with repeat injection under cineangiography only when needed, was efficacious at reducing patient radiation exposure.

A randomized comparison of the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary artery bypass graft angiography and intervention: the RADIAL-CABG Trial (RADIAL Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Angiography and Intervention)

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare and contrast use and radiation exposure using radial versus femoral access during cardiac catheterization of patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available on the relative merits of radial compared with femoral access for cardiac catheterization in patients who had previously undergone CABG surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive patients (N = 128) having previously undergone CABG surgery and referred for cardiac catheterization were randomized to radial or femoral access. The primary study endpoint was contrast volume. Secondary endpoints included fluoroscopy time, procedure time, patient and operator radiation exposure, vascular complications, and major adverse cardiac events. Analyses were by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Compared with femoral access, diagnostic coronary angiography via radial access was associated with a higher mean contrast volume (142 ± 39 ml vs. 171 ± 72 ml, p < 0.01), longer procedure time (21.9 ± 6.8 min vs. 34.2 ± 14.7 min, p < 0.01), greater patient air kerma (kinetic energy released per unit mass) radiation exposure (1.08 ± 0.54 Gy vs. 1.29 ± 0.67 Gy, p = 0.06), and higher operator radiation dose (first operator: 1.3 ± 1.0 mrem vs. 2.6 ± 1.7 mrem, p < 0.01; second operator 0.8 ± 1.1 mrem vs. 1.8 ± 2.1 mrem, p = 0.01). Fewer patients underwent ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the radial group (37.5% vs. 46.9%, p = 0.28) and radial PCI procedures were less complex. The incidences of the primary and secondary endpoints was similar with femoral and radial access among PCI patients. Access crossover was higher in the radial group (17.2% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.01) and vascular access site complications were similar in both groups (3.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who had previously undergone CABG surgery, transradial diagnostic coronary angiography was associated with greater contrast use, longer procedure time, and greater access crossover and operator radiation exposure compared with transfemoral angiography. (RADIAL Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Angiography and Intervention [RADIAL-CABG] Trial; NCT01446263).