Operator Radiation Exposure During Percutaneous Coronary Procedures Through the Left or Right Radial Approach

Background— Transradial percutaneous coronary procedures may be effectively performed through the right radial approach (RRA) or the left radial approach (LRA), but data on radiation dose absorbed by operators comparing the two approaches are lacking. The aim of the present study was to evaluate radiation dose absorbed by operators during coronary procedures through the RRA and LRA. Methods and Results— Three operators were equipped with 5 different dosimeters (left wrist, shoulder, thorax outside the lead apron, thorax under the lead apron, and thyroid) during RRA or LRA for coronary procedures. Each month, the dosimeters were analyzed to determine the radiation dose absorbed. From February to December 2009, 390 patients were randomly assigned to the RRA (185 patients; age, 66±11 years) or the LRA (185 patients; age, 66±11 years). There were no significant differences in fluoroscopy time (for RRA, 369 seconds; interquartile range, 134 to 857 seconds; for LRA, 362 seconds; interquartile range, 142 to 885 seconds; P =0.58) between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in monthly radiation dose at the thorax (0.85±0.46 mSv for RRA and 1.12±0.78 mSv for LRA, P =0.33), at the thyroid (0.36±0.2 mSv for RRA and 0.34±0.3 mSv for LRA, P =0.87), and at the shoulder (0.73±0.44 mSv for RRA and 0.94±0.42 mSv for LRA, P =0.27). The dose at the wrist was significantly higher for the RRA (2.44±1.12 mSv) compared with the LRA (1±0.8 mSv, P =0.002). In both radial approaches, the thoracic radiation dose under the lead apron was undetectable. Conclusions— Compared with RRA, LRA for coronary procedures is associated with similar radiation dose for operators at the body, shoulder, or thyroid level, with a possible significant advantage at the wrist. The cumulative radiation dose for both approaches is well under to the annual dose-equivalent limit. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00282646

Dual pathway inhibition in atherothrombosis prevention: yes, now we can!

Despite ongoing developments, prevention and treatment of atherothrombotic cardiovascular disease remains a common challenge. Antithrombotic options for cardiocerebrovascular disease prevention involves a choice between dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and dual pathway inhibition (DPI), which includes an antiplatelet agent and a reduced dose anticoagulant agent. In selected patients at high risk of event and low risk of bleeding, especially those undergoing recent and complex coronary revascularization using drug-eluting stents (DES) ("revascularization-driven effect"), DAPT is superior to single antiplatelet therapy with aspirin. DPI involves a wider potential range of treatment and is superior to single antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, particularly in patients with atherothrombotic involvement in different vascular beds both previously revascularized and not ("no revascularization-driven effect"). After nearly thirty years of randomized trials and observational registries, we have sufficient data to customize antithrombotic therapy in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Therefore, "atherothrombosis stakeholders" must identify the right patient for the right therapy to ensure high levels of efficacy and safety with the best of current therapeutic opportunities

Safety and Efficacy of Triple Therapeutic Targets with Rivaroxaban after Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Left Ventricular Thrombi in a Case of Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

We present the complex case of a high-risk patient with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, who experienced a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular (LV) thrombi and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation. The patient was initially treated with short-term triple therapy including aspirin, clopidogrel, and rivaroxaban 15 mg/die. Following aspirin dropping one month after discharge, the patient continued on dual therapy with clopidogrel and rivaroxaban, and a clinical and imaging follow-up at 6 and 12 months confirmed the LV thrombi resolution, with no thromboembolic episodes and a good safety profile

Prospective multicentre clinical performance evaluation of second and third generation zotarolimus-eluting stents to treat patients with bifurcated coronary lesions

Aim To assess the "real world" clinical outcome of patients with bifurcated lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of second and third generations of zotarolimus-eluting stent. Methods and Results Nine Italian centres participated in a prospective multicentre clinical project evaluating the outcome of patients receiving zotarolimus-eluting Resolute stent and Resolute Integrity stents. Patients with bifurcated lesions entered this evaluation. Clinical characteristics and angiographic and procedural details were prospectively recorded. Clinical outcome was prospectively assessed to evaluate the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). A total of 577 patients were enrolled. The target lesion was distal left main in 11.1% and left anterior descending artery in 52.8%, and 30.3% of lesions were Medina 1,1,1. At a mean follow-up time of 27.0 ± 13.5 months, the survival free from MACE was 91.8%. Survival free from MACE was similar in patients grouped according to different bifurcated lesion complexity. On the contrary, patients receiving a single stent had better survival free from MACE as compared with those with double stent (P = 0.005). At multivariable analysis, double stenting (but not bifurcated lesion complexity) was found to be a significant predictor of MACE (hazard ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-4.94; P = 0.007). Of note, patients receiving the second stent as a bail-out had worse survival free from MACE compared with those who received it as a planned technique (P = 0.045). Conclusion The treatment of patients with bifurcated lesions with second and third generation zotarolimus-eluting stents is associated with good long-term clinical outcomes. Clinical outcome seems to be independent of lesion complexity, but may be influenced by the stenting technique (single or double stenting as well as elective or bail-out double stenting)

The Outcome of PCI for stent-ThrombosIs MultIcentre Study (OPTIMIST): Rationale and design of a multicenter registry

N/