Quality of life in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention--radial versus femoral access (from the OCEAN RACE Trial)

Clinical Practice Patterns for Transradial Coronary Artery Catheterisation in Australian and New Zealand: Mixed-Methods Survey and Interview Study

BACKGROUND

While there has been an increase in the use of the transradial approach when performing percutaneous coronary angiography and intervention, there is evidence of variations in international practice. Ensuring that operators' practices are supported by evidence is important to ensure optimal outcomes.

METHOD

Interventional cardiologists and advanced trainees completed a cross-sectional survey followed by semi-structured interviews to map current practices for transradial coronary artery procedures in Australia and New Zealand and explore factors that influence clinical decision-making around procedural practice.

RESULTS

The right radial artery was the preferred access site (88%). Over a third (37%) of the participants indicated that they tested the hand circulation pre-procedure. Over a quarter of respondents (28.6%) reported that they would carry out transradial procedures regardless of the patient's coagulation status. Most participants (77.8%) described radial artery spasm in around 10% of transradial procedures performed. Only 62% of participants assessed for radial artery occlusion post-catheterisation. Interview data revealed four themes that guided clinical decision-making, namely (1) Decision-making based on research, (2) Using clinical experience, (3) Being led by their training, and (4) Individual patient factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has demonstrated that despite clinical guidelines, substantial practice variation exists in transradial coronary artery catheterisation across Australia and New Zealand. The variation in practice and factors impacting clinical decision-making highlight a need for future strategies to optimise evidence translation and implementation across clinical settings.

No difference in 30-day outcome and quality of life in transradial versus transfemoral access - Results from the German Austrian ABSORB registry (GABI-R)

BACKGROUND

Radial (RA) instead of femoral access (FA) for coronary interventions has become a European Society of Cardiology Class-IA guideline recommendation. But when the decision on the access site is left to the discretion of the operator, differences in adverse event rates mitigate.

METHODS

We compared the 30-day outcome for RA and FA in all patients recruited for the observational German Austrian ABSORB Registry (GABI-R) in regard to all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), TIMI major bleedings (TMB) and quality of life (QoL). All patients were treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold. Access site was left to the discretion of the operator.

RESULTS

In total, 3137 patients included by 92 centers received percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for acute MI in 51.5% and non-acute settings in 48.5%. RA was performed in 47.8% and had a higher median radiation exposure (3896 vs. 3082 cGycm², p < 0.001). There was no difference in the amount of contrast used. There was also no difference in all-cause mortality (0.53% vs. 0.49%, p = 0.86), the combination of death, MI and stroke (1.87% vs. 1.83%, p = 0.94), but a trend towards more TMB (0.47% vs. 1.04%, p = 0.07) with FA. These outcomes were consistent across the subgroups of patients with ST-elevation MI, non-ST-elevation-ACS and stable coronary artery disease. Finally, QoL did not differ between RA and FA.

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary GABI-R cohort, in which access site was left to the discretion of the operator, both access routes were safe and equal concerning QoL (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02066623).

Comparison of Access Site-Related Complications and Quality of Life in Patients after Invasive Cardiology Procedures According to the Use of Radial, Femoral, or Brachial Approach

The radial approach (RA) is the most common in invasive cardiology, but depending on the clinical situation, the femoral approach (FA) and brachial approach (BA) are also used. The BA is associated with the highest odds of complications so it is used mainly if a first-choice approach fails. The aim of the study was to assess clinical outcomes after invasive cardiology procedures stratified by the use of the RA, FA, and BA, with a focus on access site-related complications, quality of life (QoL), and patients' perspective. A total of 250 procedures (RA: 98; FA: 99; BA: 53) performed between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Puncture site-related complications, vascular events, patient preferences, and QoL were assessed by the analysis of medical records and telephone follow-up using a proprietary questionnaire and the modified EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. Patients from the RA group received the smallest volume of contrast during a percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) procedure (RA vs. FA vs. BA: 180 (150-240) mL vs. 200 (180-270) mL vs. 190 (100-200) mL, p = 0.045). The access site was changed most frequently in the procedures initiated from the RA (p < 0.04). Overall puncture site-related complications, especially local hematomas, occurred most commonly in the BA group (7.1, 14.1, and 24.5% for RA, FA, and BA, respectively, p = 0.01). During the index procedure, the access site was changed most frequently in procedures initiated from the RA (19.7, 8.5 and 0%, p = 0.04). The RA was indicated as an approach preferred by the patient for a hypothetical next procedure (87.9, 55.4, and 70.0% for subjects preferring the same approach out of patients who underwent a procedure by the RA, FA, and BA, respectively, p < 0.001). For the RA and FA, the prevalence of moderate or extreme access site-related problems in self-care decreased significantly (RA: p < 0.01, FA: p < 0.05) within 1 month after the index procedure (RA: 18.1, 4.2, and 1.4%; FA: 20.7, 11.1, and 9.6% periprocedurally, after 1 and 6 months, respectively). In contrast, for the BA these percentages were higher and a significant improvement (p < 0.05) was delayed until 6 months (54.6, 36.4, and 18.2% periprocedurally, after 1 and 6 months, respectively). In conclusion, compared to the BA and FA, the RA appears to be not only the safest, mainly due to the lowest risk of puncture site-related complications after coronary procedures but also represents a preferable approach from the patient's perspective. Although overall post-procedural QoL outcomes did not differ significantly according to the access site, nevertheless, the BA was associated with more frequent self-care problems whose improvement was delayed until more than one month after the index procedure.

Improved Fluoroscopy and Time Efficiency with Radial Access for Diagnostic Cerebral Angiography

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Radial artery catheterization has been newly incorporated into the field of endovascular surgical neuroradiology as a safer and more efficient method for Cerebral angiography as opposed to the femoral artery approach. The objective is to understand the relationship between cerebral angiography procedure times after an operator has converted to a radial first approach.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted from January to August of 2019 to compare procedural times for femoral and radial artery approaches. This was conducted by comparing different procedural specifications, such as total procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and amount of contrast used.

RESULTS

The average age of the 434 patients in the analysis was 63.9 years with a range of 19 and 96 years. One hundred eighty-three patients (mean fluoroscopy time 7.55, 95% confidence interval 7.03-8.08) underwent successful diagnostic cerebral angiographies through the radial artery and, 251 patients through the femoral approach. The first 2 months of the radial approach saw an average fluoroscopy time of 11.23 minutes. In the last 2 months of the study, the fluoroscopy time plateaued to an average of 6.73 minutes after 55 cases. Radial artery average procedural time was reduced from 33 to 21 minutes. Angiography utilizing the femoral approach averaged 16 minutes throughout the study period.

CONCLUSION

Transradial procedural time and fluoroscopy time continued to improve until about 55 cases, but did not reach the peak efficiency of the femoral approach. Further advances in catheter technology are needed to continue to improve radial artery diagnostic cerebral angiography.

Quality of Life Changes in Acute Coronary Syndromes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There is little up-to-date evidence about changes in quality of life following treatment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. The main aim of this review was to assess the changes in QoL in ACS patients after treatment. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative studies. The search included studies that described the change of QoL of ACS patients after receiving treatment options such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and medical therapy (MT). We synthesized findings using content analysis and pooled the estimates using meta-analysis. We used the PRISMA guidelines to select and appraise the studies and report the findings. Twenty-nine (29) articles were included in the review. We found a significant improvement of QoL in ACS patients after receiving treatment. Particularly, the meta-analytic association found that the mean QoL of patients diagnosed with ACS was higher after receiving treatment compared to baseline (overall pooled mean difference = 31.88; 95% CI = 31.64–52.11, I² = 98) with patients on PCI having slightly lower QoL gains (pooled mean difference = 30.22; 95% CI = 29.9–30.53, I² = 0%) compared to those on CABG (pooled mean difference = 34.01; 95% CI = 33.66–34.37, I² = 0%). The review confirmed that QoL of ACS patients improved after receiving treatment therapies although varied by the treatment options and patients’ preferences. This suggests the need to perform further study on the QoL, patient preferences and physicians’ decision to prescription of treatment options.

Transradial versus transfemoral approaches for diagnostic cerebral angiography: a prospective, single-center, non-inferiority comparative effectiveness study

Background

Interventional cardiology produced level 1 evidence recommending radial artery-first for coronary angiography given lower vascular complications. Neuroendovascular surgeons have not widely adopted the transradial approach. This prospective, single center, non-inferiority comparative effectiveness study aims to compare the transradial and transfemoral approaches for diagnostic cerebral angiography with respect to efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction.

Methods

Consecutive patients presenting for diagnostic cerebral angiography were selected to undergo right radial or femoral access based on date of presentation. Primary outcome was ability to answer the predefined diagnostic goal of the cerebral angiogram using the initial access site and was assessed with a non-inferiority design. Secondary outcomes included technical success per vessel, complications, procedure times and patient satisfaction.

Results

A total of 312 patients were enrolled, 158 and 154 for right radial and femoral access, respectively. The diagnostic goal of the angiogram was achieved in 152 of 154 (99%) patients who underwent attempted femoral access compared with 153 of 158 (97%) patients who underwent radial access, confirming non-inferiority of the transradial approach. Secondary outcomes showed equivalent technical success by vessel, no major complications, and similar frequency of minor complications between the two approaches. In-room time was similar between approaches, though post-procedure recovery room time was significantly shorter for transradial patients. Patient satisfaction results significantly favored the radial approach.

Conclusions

In patients undergoing diagnostic cerebral angiography, transfemoral and transradial access achieve procedural goals with similar effectiveness and safety, though patients strongly prefer the radial approach. Findings support consideration of adopting a radial-first strategy for diagnostic cerebral angiography.

Use of Prospective Radiobrachial Angiography in Transradial Cardiac Catheterization and Intervention

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the utility of prospective radiobrachial angiography (pRBA) in transradial coronary angiography and intervention as a method for reducing procedural complications.

BACKGROUND

A growing body of evidence has supported the transradial approach (TRA) as superior to the transfemoral approach (TFA) due to advantages such as reduced bleeding and improved outcomes in high-risk patients. However, TRA has a higher failure rate than TFA, and has seen slow rates of adoption among United States operators.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single center, case-control analysis of coronary angiography procedures, performed by two experienced operators at the University of Chicago Medical Center between October 28, 2015 and July 21, 2017. Operator 1 began using pRBA during the study, whereas Operator 2 used pRBA in all TRA procedures. There were 567 patients stratified into three groups based on operator and pRBA use. Comparisons of procedural outcomes for Operator 1 before and after adoption of pRBA, and of outcomes between Operator 1 and Operator 2 were made.

RESULTS

Use of pRBA was associated with reduced overall procedural complication rates (2.5% versus 10.4%, p = 0.004), driven primarily by reflexive radiobrachial angiography (rRBA) after resistance or pain was encountered (8.6% versus 0.0%, p = 0.0001) for Operator 1. A slight reduction in contrast associated with pRBA for Operator 1 was noted, but no difference in procedural time, radiation dose, or additional equipment used across groups was found. No significant difference in adverse procedural outcomes between the pRBA groups of Operator 1 and Operator 2 were observed. In patients with radiobrachial variants in anatomy, use of pRBA was associated with shorter times to cross anatomic lesions, shorter procedure times, reduced use of extra catheters, and less perforations and crossovers compared to patients requiring rRBA. Lack of pRBA was associated with higher procedural complications (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% CI, 1.03-1.13, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

pRBA may be a useful tool for mitigating procedural complications, reducing time needed to cross difficult radiobrachial anatomy, and reducing the need to utilize additional equipment in TRA. pRBA may offer operators a tool to improve outcomes and increase adoption of this approach.

Radial Artery Catheterization for Neuroendovascular Procedures

Background and Purpose—

Radial artery catheterization is an alternate route of access that has started to gain more widespread use for neuroendovascular procedures, and there have been few studies that describe its safety and efficacy. We present our institution’s experience in performing neuroendovascular interventions via a transradial approach, with excellent clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction measures.

Methods—

We conducted a retrospective analysis and identified 223 patients who underwent 233 consecutive neuroendovascular interventions via radial artery access at our institution. The incidence of perioperative and postprocedural complications was investigated. We identified a subset of 98 patients who have undergone both transradial and transfemoral cerebral angiograms and compared clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction measures between the 2 groups.

Results—

The overall incidence of complications was low across all procedures performed via transradial access. Peri-procedurally, only 2 patients had symptomatic radial artery spasm, and there were no instances of iatrogenic complications (vessel dissection, stroke, and hemorrhage). In 10 cases (4.3%), the intended procedure could not be completed via a transradial approach, and, thus, femoral artery access had to be pursued instead. Ten patients complained of minor postprocedural complications, although none required therapeutic intervention. The mean procedure time was shorter for diagnostic angiograms performed via transradial versus transfemoral access (18.8±15.8 versus 39.5±31.1 minutes; P =0.025). Patients overall reported shorter recovery times with transradial access, and the majority of patients (94%) would elect to have subsequent procedures performed via this route.

Conclusions—

Radial artery catheterization is a safe and durable alternative to perform a wide range of neuroendovascular procedures, with a low rate of complications. On the whole, patients prefer transradial compared with transfemoral access.

Using path analysis to investigate the relationships between depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life among patients with coronary artery disease

PURPOSE

Demographic and clinical indicators usually influence depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this study was to assess the direct and indirect association that existed among the identified variables, psychosocial status, and HRQoL in CAD patients.

METHODS

CAD patients with at least one of the main coronary artery and/or branch stenosis over 50% were eligible for inclusion. HRQoL, depression, and anxiety were tested by questionnaires within 3 days after angiography. Mono-factor and multiple linear regression models were used to examine the independent associations of depression, anxiety, and HRQoL. A path analysis was conducted to examine the association among demographic/clinical indicators, depression, anxiety, and HRQoL.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 414 subject, patients with depression accounted for 40.82%, and patients with anxiety accounted for 25.12%. The direct effects of SAS scores on HRQoL (B = - 0.26, β = - 0.16), of SDS scores on HRQoL (B = - 0.70, β = - 0.47), of gender on HRQoL (B = 4.05, β = 0.17), and of NYHA classification on HRQoL (B = - 3.46, β = - 0.18) were significant (p < 0.001). The indirect effects of gender on HRQoL (B = 2.16, β = 0.09) and of Gensini scores on HRQoL (B = - 0.06, β = - 0.08) were also statistically significant (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Depression and anxiety were common CAD patients and played an important role in HRQoL. Gender differences were found in determinants of HRQoL and the state of depression and anxiety directly, and women's anxiety, depression, and quality of life were worse than men's. NYHA classification and Gensini scores also played direct and indirect role in HRQoL, respectively.

Relative importance of attribute preferences for radial vs. femoral arterial access: A crowdsourcing study of healthy online-recruited volunteers

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is typically performed with vascular access provided by the radial or femoral artery. However, little is known about how patients value aspects of these different vascular access approaches.

METHODS

Conjoint analysis is a survey-based statistical technique used in market research that helps determine how individuals value different attributes that make up a particular product or services. We utilized conjoint analysis to assess the relative importance of four attributes associated with PCI: access site, risk of bleeding, hospital stay, and radiation exposure. Participants were healthy individuals recruited by Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTURK). After completing a conjoint analysis survey, the software Conjoint.ly was used to calculate the relative importance for these four different attributes of PCI.

RESULTS

The relative importance of hospital stay, radiation exposure, bleeding risk, and procedure site was 32.7% (95% CI 29.5-35.8), 27.3% (95% CI 24.8-29.8), 24.4% (95% CI 22.3-26.5), and 15.7% (95% CI 13.6-17.8), respectively. The difference between these groups was statistically significant (P-value < 0.00001). The difference between duration of hospital stay and radiation exposure was statistically significant (P-value < 0.00433).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing PCI place largest relative value on duration of hospital stay. Access site appears the least valued attribute. These findings carry implications to guide further research on access site choices and the consent process in the context of shared decision-making.

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).

Effect of early percutaneous coronary intervention on one-year risk of pneumonia and pneumonia-related adverse outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and pneumonia risk in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) by using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In total, 4,732 patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and 5,465 with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who had received PCI during AMI hospitalisation (early PCI) were evaluated. Patients who did not receive PCI during AMI hospitalisation (deferred PCI) were matched through propensity score matching. The incidence rates (per 100 person-months) of pneumonia hospitalisation, pneumonia-related respiratory failure, and pneumonia-related death associated with early PCI in patients with NSTEMI were 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.42), 0.12 (95% CI: 0.10-0.16), and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.11), respectively. In patients with STEMI, the incidence rates (per 100 person-months) of the aforementioned adverse events were 0.16 (95% CI: 0.13-0.20), 0.04 (95% CI: 0.03-0.06), and 0.02 (95% CI: 0.01-0.04), respectively. After adjustment for patients' clinical variables, early PCI was associated with reduced risks of pneumonia hospitalisation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.54, 95% CI: 0.43-0.68, p<0.001), pneumonia-related respiratory failure (aHR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.84, p=0.006), and pneumonia-related death (aHR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17-0.52, p<0.001) in patients with NSTEMI. In patients with STEMI, early PCI was beneficial for pneumonia hospitalisation (aHR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.45- 0.86, p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Early PCI might reduce the risk of pneumonia hospitalisation in patients with AMI.

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.

[Radial approach in women]

Since the first series of coronary angiographies through the radial approach reported by Campeau in 1989, the radial route has become a major approach, used in up to 95 % of PCIs in some centers. As documented by this clinical case, and although registries show that the radial approach is underused in women compared to men, women benefit from the radial approach mainly by reducing the bleeding risk. Indeed, despite more frequent difficulties encountered by using this approach in women, the radial approach has to be preferred because it reduces haemorrhagic complications and death in comparison to the femoral route.

The effect of percutaneous coronary intervention on habitual physical activity in older patients

BACKGROUND

Given the ongoing burden of cardiovascular disease and an ageing population, physical activity in patients with coronary artery disease needs to be emphasized. This study assessed whether sedentary behaviour and physical activity levels differed among older patients (≥75 years) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) consisting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non STEMI (NSTEMI) versus an elective admission control group of stable angina patients.

METHODS

Sedentary behaviour and physical activity were assessed over a 7-day period using wrist-worn triaxial accelerometers (GENEActiv, Activinsights Ltd, UK) in 58 patients following PCI for, STEMI (n = 20) NSTEMI (n = 18) and stable angina (n = 20) upon discharge from a tertiary centre. Mean ± Standard deviation age was 79 ± 4 years (31% female).

RESULTS

STEMI and NSTEMI patients spent more time in the low acceleration category (0-40 mg) reflecting sedentary time versus stable angina patients (1298 ± 59 and 1305 ± 66 vs. 1240 ± 92 min/day, p < 0.05). STEMI and NSTEMI patients spent less time in the 40-80 mg acceleration category reflecting low physical activity versus stable angina patients (95 ± 35 and 94 ± 41 vs. 132 ± 50 min/day, p < 0.05). Stable angina patients spent more time in the higher acceleration categories (80-120 and 120-160 mg) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (defined as 1 and 5 min/day bouts) versus NSTEMI patients (p < 0.05). For acceleration categories ≥160 mg, no differences were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with ACS and undergoing PCI spent more time in sedentary behaviour compared with stable angina patients.

EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000-2015

OBJECTIVE

Cost per quality-adjusted life year data are required for reimbursement decisions in many Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. EQ-5D is by far the most commonly used instrument to generate utility values in CEE. This study aims to systematically review the literature on EQ-5D from eight CEE countries.

METHODS

An electronic database search was performed up to 1 July 2015 to identify original EQ-5D studies from the countries of interest. We analysed the use of EQ-5D with respect to clinical areas, methodological rigor, population norms and value sets.

RESULTS

We identified 143 studies providing 152 country-specific results with a total sample size of 81,619: Austria (n = 11), Bulgaria (n = 6), Czech Republic (n = 18), Hungary (n = 47), Poland (n = 51), Romania (n = 2), Slovakia (n = 3) and Slovenia (n = 14). Cardiovascular (21 %), neurologic (17 %), musculoskeletal (15 %) and endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases (13 %) were the most frequently studied clinical areas. Overall, 112 (78 %) of the studies reported EQ VAS results and 86 (60 %) EQ-5D index scores, of which 27 (31 %) did not specify the applied tariff. Hungary, Poland and Slovenia have population norms. Poland and Slovenia also have a national value set.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing use of EQ-5D is observed throughout CEE. The spread of health technology assessment activities in countries seems to be reflected in the number of EQ-5D studies. However, improvement in informed use and methodological quality of reporting is needed. In jurisdictions where no national value set is available, in order to ensure comparability we recommend to apply the most frequently used UK tariff. Regional collaboration between CEE countries should be strengthened.

Transradial vs Transfemoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this meta-analysis to evaluate safety and efficacy of transradial vs the transfemoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials that compared the transfemoral vs the transradial approach in STEMI patients who underwent PCI were searched in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and clinicaltrials.gov. Random effect models were used to pool effect sizes.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials, comprising data from 9726 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. All-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.85; relative risk reduction [RRR], 32.8%; I(2) = 0), major bleeding (RR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.74; RRR, 48.1%; I(2) = 0), access site bleeding (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.29-0.50; RRR, 63.9%; I(2) = 0), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.94; RRR, 19.3%; I(2) = 0), and length of hospital stay (standardized mean difference, -0.38 days; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.31 days) were significantly lower with the transradial compared with the transfemoral approach. The greatest reduction in major bleeding was found in the subgroup with trials recruiting only primary PCI participants compared with varying proportions of rescue PCIs. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use and cross-over rates did not have a significant association with outcome measures in the subgroup analysis. Incidence of stroke was numerically greater with the transradial approach but did not achieve statistical significance (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.56-2.66; I(2) = 0). Overall statistical heterogeneity (I(2)) was very low except for length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The transradial approach for PCI in STEMI patients significantly reduced all-cause mortality, major and access site bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events, and length of hospital stay. Difference in stroke incidence was not statistically significant with the transradial vs the transfemoral approach.

[A case, a review: We have to promote radial approach for acute coronary syndrome]

This overweight woman's case, who underwent a primary coronary intervention for STEMI, reminds us how much the trans-radial angioplasty is interesting in this particular case leaning on the recent literature, randomized trials and registries, in terms of major adverse events reduction including mortality. We are going to debate about hesitation of using radial approach whose only everyday's practising could make this approach a STEMI one.

Comparison of quality-of-life measures after radial versus femoral artery access for cardiac catheterization in women: Results of the Study of Access Site for Enhancement of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Women quality-of-life substudy

BACKGROUND

In the SAFE-PCI for Women trial, patient preference for radial access for future procedures was greater than for femoral access. We sought to assess whether radial or femoral access impacts formal measures of quality-of-life (QOL) among women undergoing cardiac catheterization.

METHODS

We assessed QOL using European quality of life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores among 304 women randomized to radial or femoral arteriotomy in the SAFE-PCI for Women trial at sites with QOL substudy approval. Patient surveys were administered at baseline, hospital discharge, and 30 days (for percutaneous coronary intervention patients).

RESULTS

Women randomized to both treatments had similar EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS scores at baseline, hospital discharge, and 30-day follow-up. After adjustment for baseline scores, there was no effect of assigned treatment on EQ-5D (discharge 0.004; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 30 days -0.03; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02) or EQ-VAS (discharge -1.31; 95% CI -4.74 to 2.12; 30 days -2.10; 95% CI -8.92 to 4.71) scores. At discharge, 60.5% versus 63.5% (P = .60) of patients in radial and femoral groups were free from access site pain; at 30 days, rates were 85.7% versus 77.6% (P = .30), respectively. Patient preference for the same access strategy for repeat procedures was greater in the radial versus femoral group (77.2% vs 26.8%; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Using established QOL instruments, we did not measure any difference in QOL or functional status according to access site strategy in women undergoing cardiac catheterization, yet patient preference for the radial approach was significantly greater. Other factors influencing patient choice for radial access should be investigated.

A comparison of radial and femoral access for cardiac catheterization

Over the past several years, the transradial approach (TRA) for cardiac catheterization has become increasingly adopted in the United States. The increased utilization of the TRA is grounded on 2 decades of research, showing reduced bleeding and vascular complications to complement improved patient quality of life. However, the concern over cost, radiation exposure, and acknowledged "learning curve" has kept the transfemoral approach (TFA) the mainstay of most US catheterization laboratories. More recent larger multi-centered randomized studies have aimed to address outcomes and these concerns between the TR and TF approaches. This article will review the changing trends in TRA in the US, discuss clinical (bleeding and mortality) and non-clinical (quality of life and cost) outcomes from recent randomized studies, and finally discuss certain aspects when it comes to adopting TRA.