The Benefits Conferred by Radial Access for Cardiac Catheterization Are Offset by a Paradoxical Increase in the Rate of Vascular Access Site Complications With Femoral Access The Campeau Radial Paradox

AbstractObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess whether the benefits conferred by radial access (RA) at an individual level are offset by a proportionally greater incidence of vascular access site complications (VASC) at a population level when femoral access (FA) is performed.BackgroundThe recent widespread adoption of RA for cardiac catheterization has been associated with increased rates of VASCs when FA is attempted.MethodsLogistic regression was used to calculate the adjusted VASC rate in a contemporary cohort of consecutive patients (2006 to 2008) where both RA and FA were used, and compared it with the adjusted VASC rate observed in a historical control cohort (1996 to 1998) where only FA was used. We calculated the adjusted attributable risk to estimate the proportion of VASC attributable to the introduction of RA in FA patients of the contemporary cohort.ResultsA total of 17,059 patients were included. At a population level, the VASC rate was higher in the overall contemporary cohort compared with the historical cohort (adjusted rates: 2.91% vs. 1.98%; odds ratio [OR]: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17 to 1.89; p = 0.001). In the contemporary cohort, RA patients experienced fewer VASC than FA patients (adjusted rates: 1.44% vs. 4.19%; OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.48; p < 0.001). We observed a higher VASC rate in FA patients in the contemporary cohort compared with the historical cohort (adjusted rates: 4.19% vs. 1.98%; OR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.67 to 2.81; p < 0.001). This finding was consistent for both diagnostic and therapeutic catheterizations separately. The proportion of VASCs attributable to RA in the contemporary FA patients was estimated at 52.7%.ConclusionsIn a contemporary population where both RA and FA were used, the safety benefit associated with RA is offset by a paradoxical increase in VASCs among FA patients. The existence of this radial paradox should be taken into consideration, especially among trainees and default radial operators

A phase II, sham-controlled, double-blinded study testing the safety and efficacy of the coronary sinus reducer in patients with refractory angina: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background A growing population of patients lives with severe coronary artery disease not amenable to coronary revascularization and with refractory angina despite optimal medical therapy. Percutaneous reduction of the coronary sinus is an emerging treatment for myocardial ischemia that increases coronary sinus pressure to promote a transcollateral redistribution of coronary artery in-flow from nonischemic to ischemic subendocardial territories. A first-in-man study has demonstrated that the percutaneous reduction of the coronary sinus can be performed safely in such patients. The COSIRA trial seeks to assess whether a percutaneous reduction of the coronary sinus can improve the symptoms of refractory angina in patients with limited revascularization options. Methods/Design The COSIRA trial is a phase II double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized parallel trial comparing the percutaneously implanted coronary sinus Reducer (Neovasc Inc, Richmond, BC, Canada) to a sham implantation in 124 patients enrolled in Canada, Belgium, England, Scotland, Sweden and Denmark. All patients need to have stable Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class III or IV angina despite optimal medical therapy, with evidence of reversible ischemia related to disease in the left coronary artery, and a left ventricular ejection fraction >25%. Participants experiencing an improvement in their angina ≥2 CCS classes six months after the randomization will meet the primary efficacy endpoint. The secondary objective of this trial is to test whether coronary sinus Reducer implantation will improve left ventricular ischemia, as measured by the improvement in dobutamine echocardiogram wall motion score index and in time to 1 mm ST-segment depression from baseline to six-month post-implantation. Discussion Based on previous observations, the COSIRA is expected to provide a significant positive result or an informative null result upon which rational development decisions can be based. Patient safety is a central concern and extensive monitoring should allow an appropriate investigation of the safety related to the coronary sinus Reducer.Neovasc Inc

Importance of angina in patients with coronary disease, heart failure, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction

Background: Patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, coronary artery disease (CAD), and angina are often thought to have a worse prognosis and a greater prognostic benefit from coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery than those without angina. Objectives: This study investigated: 1) whether angina was associated with a worse prognosis; 2) whether angina identified patients who had a greater survival benefit from CABG; and 3) whether CABG improved angina in patients with LV systolic dysfunction and CAD. Methods: We performed an analysis of the STICH (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) trial, in which 1,212 patients with an ejection fraction ≤35% and CAD were randomized to CABG or medical therapy. Multivariable Cox and logistic models were used to assess long-term clinical outcomes. Results: At baseline, 770 patients (64%) reported angina. Among patients assigned to medical therapy, all-cause mortality was similar in patients with and without angina (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.38). The effect of CABG was similar whether the patient had angina (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.13) or not (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.94; p interaction = 0.14). Patients assigned to CABG were more likely to report improvement in angina than those assigned to medical therapy alone (odds ratio: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.90; p &lt; 0.01). Conclusions: Angina does not predict all-cause mortality in medically treated patients with LV systolic dysfunction and CAD, nor does it identify patients who have a greater survival benefit from CABG. However, CABG does improve angina to a greater extent than medical therapy alone. (Comparison of Surgical and Medical Treatment for Congestive Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease [STICH]; NCT00023595)