Background: The use of radial access in cardiac interventions is associated with reduced vascular complications, however it demands a longer learning curve and may increase fluoroscopy time. This study aimed to evaluate the fluoroscopy time as a surrogate marker of radiation exposure, during diagnostic cardiac catheterization by radial and femoral routes. Methods: Retrospective observational study including patients who underwent cardiac catheterization from July 2013 to October 2014. Radial and femoral groups were compared for total procedural time, fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy to procedural time ratio and vascular complications. Results: The study included 1,915 procedures, 11.2% of which performed by radial approach and 88.8%, by femoral approach. A male prevalence was found in the radial group (80% vs. 54.1%, p < 0.01), but age (61.6 ± 9.7 years vs. 62.4 ± 11.6 years, p = 0.13), total procedural time (8.7 ± 3.8 vs. 8.1 ± 4.1 minutes, p = 0.91), fluoroscopy time (4.8 ± 2.7 vs. 4.1 ± 2.6 minutes, p = 0.89), fluoroscopy/ procedure time ratio (0.56 ± 0.24 vs. 0.49 ± 0.32, p = 0.89), and major complications (0.0% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.55) were similar between groups. Conclusions: The use of the transradial approach for diagnostic procedures by experienced operating physicians may be used with an acceptable total procedural time without increasing the radiation exposure of the patient and staff, and with a low incidence of complications.
We report the case of an 81-year-old patient with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who developed refractory hemodynamic instability and respiratory arrest during a diagnostic cardiac catheterization. The patient was submitted to a percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty as a life saving procedure with subsequent hemodynamic improvement and clinical stabilization. The possibility of surgical treatment for AS was excluded due to the high surgical risk. Clinical follow-up of up to 7 months after the procedure demonstrated significant improvement in functional class and good exercise tolerance.DESCrIPtOrS: Aortic valve stenosis. Shock, cardiogenic. Heart valve prosthesis implantation.1 Post-graduate (master degree). Interventionist cardiologist physician
Introduction: Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) significantly reduce restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared to bare metal stents (BMS). The novel sirolimus analog, Biolimus A9T (BA9), presented similar safety and efficacy in the randomized, controlled STEALTH I trial. This study compared the efficacy of a BA9-eluting stent versus sirolimus-eluting and bare metal control stents. Methods: Forty-five patients with de novo coronary lesions were randomly assigned in a 2:1 basis to receive either BA9-eluting (n = 30) or bare metal (n=15) S-stents. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), at 6 months, were then compared to a matched series of patients who received either sirolimuseluting (n = 30) or bare metal (n = 15) Bx Velocity stents. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar among all groups, except for a significantly higher percentage of females and Class C lesions in the BA9-eluting stent group. Results: At 6 month follow-up, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between any of the groups. QCA revealed significantly lower late loss in both drug-eluting stents (DES) groups compared to bare metal controls, but no significant difference between BA9 and SES groups was observed (0.24 ± 0.39mm vs. 0.15 ± 0.38mm, p = NS). Obstruction volume measured by 3D IVUS was significantly reduced in both DES groups compared to bare metal controls, but did not differ between the BA9 and SES groups (2.23% vs. 3.30%, BA9 vs. SES, p=NS). Conclusions: BA9-eluting stents reduce neointimal hyperplasia, safely and effectively, compared to BMS, and the magnitude of this inhibition is similar to that of SES.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.