Detection of occlusive coronary disease in heart transplant recipients with elevated resting heart rate by MDCT is feasible using multicycle reconstruction. The need for surveillance invasive coronary angiography in transplant recipients might be mitigated by use of MDCT.

We report our experience using transradial access (TRA) for carotid artery stenting (CAS). Eighty-eight patients underwent CAS using a nonfemoral approach, 79 of them by TRA. Carotid artery stenting was performed using standard techniques with a long hydrophilic sheath. Mean age was 69.5 years. A total of 46 patients were symptomatic and 34 were asymptomatic. Transradial access and procedural success were achieved in 98.8% and 96.6% of the cases, respectively. There were no deaths, myocardial infarction, or radial access site complications. In all, 2 patients sustained a stroke, 1 hemorrhage, and 1 ischemia. Carotid artery stenting using TRA was safe and technically feasible.

The TR approach for CAS is safe and efficacious, with acceptable cross-over rate. In both groups, vascular complications rarely occurred.

These results suggest that direct CoreValve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis is feasible and may lead to hemodynamic and clinical improvement in patients who are poor candidates for aortic valve surgery, pending confirmation in larger series with longer follow-up.

Background: The non-invasive estimation of aortic systolic (aoSBP) and pulse pressure (aoPP) is achieved by a great variety of devices, which differ markedly in the: 1) principles of recording (applied technology), 2) arterial recording site, 3) model and mathematical analysis applied to signals, and/or 4) calibration scheme. The most reliable non-invasive procedure to obtain aoSBP and aoPP is not well established.Aim: To evaluate the agreement between aoSBP and aoPP values invasively and non-invasively obtained using different: 1) recording techniques (tonometry, oscilometry/plethysmography, ultrasound), 2) recording sites [radial, brachial (BA) and carotid artery (CCA)], 3) waveform analysis algorithms (e.g., direct analysis of the CCA pulse waveform vs. peripheral waveform analysis using general transfer functions, N-point moving average filters, etc.), 4) calibration schemes (systolic-diastolic calibration vs. methods using BA diastolic and mean blood pressure (bMBP); the latter calculated using different equations vs. measured directly by oscillometry, and 5) different equations to estimate bMBP (i.e., using a form factor of 33% (“033”), 41.2% (“0412”) or 33% corrected for heart rate (“033HR”).Methods: The invasive aortic (aoBP) and brachial pressure (bBP) (catheterization), and the non-invasive aoBP and bBP were simultaneously obtained in 34 subjects. Non-invasive aoBP levels were obtained using different techniques, analysis methods, recording sites, and calibration schemes.Results: 1) Overall, non-invasive approaches yielded lower aoSBP and aoPP levels than those recorded invasively. 2) aoSBP and aoPP determinations based on CCA recordings, followed by BA recordings, were those that yielded values closest to those recorded invasively. 3) The “033HR” and “0412” calibration schemes ensured the lowest mean error, and the “033” method determined aoBP levels furthest from those recorded invasively. 4) Most of the non-invasive approaches considered overestimated and underestimated aoSBP at low (i.e., 80 mmHg) and high (i.e., 180 mmHg) invasive aoSBP values, respectively. 5) The higher the invasively measured aoPP, the higher the level of underestimation provided by the non-invasive methods.Conclusion: The recording method and site, the mathematical method/model used to quantify aoSBP and aoPP, and to calibrate waveforms, are essential when estimating aoBP. Our study strongly emphasizes the need for methodological transparency and consensus for the non-invasive aoBP assessment.