Determinants of radiation dose during right transradial access. insights from the RAD-MATRIX study

Background The RAD-MATRIX trial reported a large operator radiation exposure variability in right radial percutaneous coronary procedures. The reasons of these differences are not well understood. Our aim was to appraise the determinants of operator radiation exposure during coronary right transradial procedures. Methods Patient arrangement during transradial intervention was investigated across operators involved in the RAD-MATRIX trial. Operator radiation exposure was analyzed according to the position of the patient right arm (close or far from the body) and in relation to the size of the upper leaded glass. Results Among the 14 operators who agreed to participate, there was a greater than 10-fold difference in radiation dose at thorax level (from 21.5 to 267 μSv) that persisted after normalization by dose-area product (from 0.35 to 3.5 μSv/Gy*cm2). Among the operators who positioned the instrumented right arm far from the body (110.4 μSv, interquartile range 71.5-146.5 μSv), thorax dose was greater than that in those who placed the instrumented arm close to the right leg (46.1 μSv, 31.3-56.8 μSv, P =.02). This difference persisted after normalization by dose-area product (P =.028). The use of a smaller full glass shield was also associated with a higher radiation exposure compared with a larger composite shield (147.5 and 60 μSv, respectively, P =.016). Conclusions In the context of the biggest radiation study conducted in patients undergoing transradial catheterization, the instrumented right arm arrangement close to the leg and greater upper leaded shield dimensions were associated with a lower operator radiation exposure. Our findings emphasize the importance of implementing simple preventive measures to mitigate the extra risks of radiation exposure with right radial as compared with femoral access

Abbreviated Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting in Patients With Myocardial Infarction at High Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy (APT) after coronary stenting in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) presenting with an acute coronary syndrome remains unclear. OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of an abbreviated APT regimen after coronary stenting in an HBR population presenting with acute or recent myocardial infarction. METHODS In the MASTER DAPT trial, 4,579 patients at HBR were randomized after 1 month of dual APT (DAPT) to abbreviated (DAPT stopped and 11 months single APT or 5 months in patients with oral anticoagulants) or nonabbreviated APT (DAPT for minimum 3 months) strategies. Randomization was stratified by acute or recent myocardial infarction at index procedure. Coprimary outcomes at 335 days after randomization were net adverse clinical outcomes events (NACE); major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE); and type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding. RESULTS NACE and MACCE did not differ with abbreviated vs nonabbreviated APT regimens in patients with an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 1,780; HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61-1.12 and HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.62-1.19, respectively) or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 2,799; HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.77-1.38 and HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.80-1.59; Pinteraction = 0.31 and 0.25, respectively). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was significantly reduced in patients with or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.91 and HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.54-0.92; Pinteraction = 0.72) with abbreviated APT. CONCLUSIONS A 1-month DAPT strategy in patients with HBR presenting with an acute or recent myocardial infarction results in similar NACE and MACCE rates and reduces bleedings compared with a nonabbreviated DAPT strategy. (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Prolonged DAPT Regimen [MASTER DAPT]; NCT03023020)

Individual Patient Data Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials of Bivalirudin versus Heparin in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Rationale and Methodology

Background: Individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of periprocedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reported conflicting results. Study-level meta-analyses lack granularity to adjust for confounders, explore heterogeneity, or identify subgroups that may particularly benefit or be harmed. Objective: To overcome these limitations, we sought to develop an individual patient-data pooled database of RCTs comparing bivalirudin versus heparin. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs in which ≥1,000 patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing PCI were randomized to bivalirudin versus heparin. Results: From 738 identified studies, 8 RCTs met the prespecified criteria. The principal investigators of each study agreed to provide patient-level data. The data were pooled and checked for accuracy against trial publications, with discrepancies addressed by consulting with the trialists. Consensus-based definitions were created to resolve differing antithrombotic, procedural, and outcome definitions. The project required 3.5 years to complete, and the final database includes 27,409 patients (13,346 randomized to bivalirudin and 14,063 randomized to heparin). Conclusion: We have created a large individual patient database of bivalirudin versus heparin RCTs in patients with AMI undergoing PCI. This endeavor may help identify the optimal periprocedural anticoagulation regimen for patient groups with different relative risks of adverse ischemic versus bleeding events, including those with ST-segment and non-ST-segment elevation MI, radial versus femoral access, use of a prolonged bivalirudin infusion or glycoprotein inhibitors, and others. Adherence to standardized techniques and rigorous validation processes should increase confidence in the accuracy and robustness of the results

Bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes managed invasively with and without ST elevation (MATRIX): randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE  To test the optimal antithrombotic regimen in patients with acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN  Randomised controlled trial. SETTING  Patients with acute coronary syndrome with and without ST segment elevation in 78 centres in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. PARTICIPANTS  7213 patients with acute coronary syndrome and planned percutaneous coronary intervention: 4010 with ST segment elevation and 3203 without ST segment elevation. The primary study results in the overall population have been reported previously. INTERVENTIONS  Patients were randomly assigned, in an open label fashion, to one of two regimens: bivalirudin with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors restricted to procedural complications or heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES  Primary endpoints were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction or stroke; and net adverse clinical events, defined as major bleeding or major adverse cardiovascular events, both assessed at 30 days. Analyses were performed by the principle of intention to treat. RESULTS  Use of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in patients assigned to heparin was planned at baseline in 30.7% of patients with ST segment elevation, in 10.9% without ST segment elevation, and in no patients assigned to bivalirudin. In patients with ST segment elevation, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 118 (5.9%) assigned to bivalirudin and 129 (6.5%) assigned to heparin (rate ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.16; P=0.43), whereas net adverse clinical events occurred in 139 (7.0%) patients assigned to bivalirudin and 163 (8.2%) assigned to heparin (0.84, 0.67 to 1.05; P=0.13). In patients without ST segment elevation, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 253 (15.9%) assigned to bivalirudin and 262 (16.4%) assigned to heparin (0.97, 0.80 to 1.17; P=0.74), whereas net adverse clinical events occurred in 262 (16.5%) patients assigned to bivalirudin and 281 (17.6%) assigned to heparin (0.93, 0.77 to 1.12; P=0.43). CONCLUSIONS  A bivalirudin monotherapy strategy compared with heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, did not result in reduced major adverse cardiovascular events or net adverse clinical events in patients with or without ST segment elevation.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01433627

A Qualitative Exploration of the Use of Contraband Cell Phones in Secured Facilities

Offenders accepting contraband cell phones in secured facilities violate state corrections law, and the possession of these cell phones is a form of risk taking behavior. When offenders continue this risky behavior, it affects their decision making in other domains where they are challenging authorities; and may impact the length of their incarceration. This qualitative phenomenological study examined the lived experience of ex-offenders who had contraband cell phones in secured correctional facilities in order to better understand their reasons for taking risks with contraband cell phones. The theoretical foundation for this study was Trimpop\u27s risk-homeostasis and risk-motivation theories that suggest an individual\u27s behaviors adapt to negotiate between perceived risk and desired risk in order to achieve satisfaction. The research question explored beliefs and perceptions of ex-offenders who chose to accept the risk of using contraband cell phones during their time in secured facilities. Data were collected anonymously through recorded telephone interviews with 8 male adult ex-offenders and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Findings indicated participants felt empowered by possession of cell phones in prison, and it was an acceptable risk to stay connected to family out of concern for loved ones. The study contributes to social change by providing those justice system administrators, and prison managers responsible for prison cell phone policies with more detailed information about the motivations and perspectives of offenders in respect to using contraband cell phones while imprisoned in secured facilities

Edoxaban and/or colchicine in outpatients with COVID-19: rationale and design of the CONVINCE trial.

BACKGROUND An excessive inflammatory response and a hypercoagulable state are not infrequent in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. However, the optimal treatment strategy for COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting is still uncertain. DESIGN The CONVINCE (NCT04516941) is an investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded-endpoint, 2 × 2 factorial design randomized trial aimed at assessing two independently tested hypotheses (anticoagulation and anti-inflammatory ones) in COVID-19 patients. Adult symptomatic patients (≥18 years of age) within 7 days from reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection managed at home or in nursery settings were considered for eligibility. Eligible patients fulfilling all inclusion and no exclusion criteria were randomized to edoxaban versus no treatment (anticoagulation hypothesis) and colchicine versus no treatment (anti-inflammatory hypothesis) in a 1 : 1:1 : 1 ratio. The study had two co-primary endpoints (one for each randomization), including the composite of major vascular thrombotic events at 25 ± 3 days for the anticoagulation hypothesis and the composite of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates at 14 ± 3 days by RT-PCR or freedom from death or hospitalizations (anti-inflammatory hypothesis). Study endpoints will be adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee. With a final sample size of 420 patients, this study projects an 80% power for each of the two primary endpoints appraised separately. CONCLUSION The CONVINCE trial aims at determining whether targeting anticoagulation and/or anti-inflammatory pathways may confer benefit in COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04516941

Radiation Exposure and Vascular Access in Acute Coronary Syndromes: The RAD-Matrix Trial

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether radial access increases the risk of operator or patient radiation exposure compared to transfemoral access when performed by expert operators. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether radial access increases radiation exposure. METHODS: A total of 8,404 patients, with or without ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, were randomly assigned to radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention, and collected fluoroscopy time and dose-area product (DAP). RAD-MATRIX is a radiation sub-study of the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX) trial. We anticipated that 13 or more operators, each wearing a thorax (primary endpoint), wrist, and head (secondary endpoints) lithium fluoride thermoluminescent dosimeter, and randomizing at least 13 patients per access site, were needed to establish noninferiority of radial versus femoral access. RESULTS: Among 18 operators, performing 777 procedures in 767 patients, the noninferiority primary endpoint was not achieved (p value for noninferiority = 0.843). Operator equivalent dose at the thorax (77 μSv) was significantly higher with radial than femoral access (41 μSv; p = 0.02). After normalization of operator radiation dose by fluoroscopy time or DAP, the difference remained significant. Radiation dose at wrist or head did not differ between radial and femoral access. Thorax operator dose did not differ for right radial (84 μSv) compared to left radial access (52 μSv; p = 0.15). In the overall MATRIX population, fluoroscopy time and DAP were higher with radial compared to femoral access: 10 min versus 9 min (p < 0.0001) and 65 Gy·cm2 versus 59 Gy·cm2 (p = 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to femoral access, radial access is associated with greater operator and patient radiation exposure when performed by expert operators in current practice. Radial operators and institutions should be sensitized towards radiation risks and adopt adjunctive radioprotective measures