login
Password reminder
Cardiovascular News
Contact the editor Visit Cardiovascular News Twitter feed Visit Cardiovascular News Facebook page
 

Radiation exposure during coronary angiography via transradial or transfemoral approaches: Does operator experience matter?


Wednesday, 25 Jul 2012 16:53
Binita Shah
Binita Shah

By Binita Shah

 

Cumulative radiation exposure to both patients and operators has become a topic of great interest given the overall increased use of both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular imaging modalities. This is all the more important with the increasing usage of multimodality imaging, including non-invasive (single-photon emission computed tomography, computed tomography angiography) and invasive procedures in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.

 

The risks of increased radiation exposure, in the short run, include dermatologic burns for patients and, in the long run, increased risk of malignancy for both patients and operators.

 

At the same time, there is a growing trend to perform invasive coronary procedures utilising the transradial approach due to decreased major bleeding complications and increased patient satisfaction compared with the transfemoral approach. However, there is a learning curve for transradial approach for coronary angiography and intervention, and it is associated with longer procedural and fluoroscopy times. Whether the increased risk of radiation exposure is seen in transradial compared with transfemoral cases when procedures are performed by experienced operators is less clearly defined.

 

A retrospective analysis of radiation exposure during coronary angiography via transradial versus transfemoral approach performed by experienced operators at the New York University Langone Medical Center was presented on 15 May during an oral abstract session of the 2012 EuroPCR meeting. In a contemporary cohort of 1,696 patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by experienced operators, transradial approach was associated with higher radiation exposure when compared with transfemoral approach. Experienced operators were defined as operators performing more than 75 PCIs per year for at least five years with more than 95% of cases using one type of approach to access.

In the diagnostic coronary angiogram only cohort, the main measure of radiation exposure, dose area product (DAP), was significantly 20.3% higher in the transradial compared with the transfemoral approach group. Junior cardiology fellows meaningfully participate during diagnostic procedures, and, therefore, a sensitivity analysis was performed excluding cases with a junior fellow present. Although median DAP decreased by 3.9% in the transradial and 0.6% in the transfemoral approach group, radiation exposure still remained significantly higher with transradial approach when the analysis was limited to procedures performed by very experienced operators without a junior cardiology fellow present.

 

In the PCI cohort, the majority were elective cases undergoing ad-hoc PCI with very low complication rates in both groups. Although lesion and procedural characteristics were well-balanced between the transradial and transfemoral approach groups, DAP was significantly 27.6% higher in the transradial compared with transfemoral approach groups.

 

Although this is a retrospective analysis of a single centre experience, we demonstrate that even in the hands of experienced operators, the radiation exposure still remains higher when using transradial approach compared with transfemoral approach. This study is also one of the few large cohorts to focus on a group of experienced operators and measure DAP, a better estimate of patient radiation dose than fluoroscopy time, as the primary outcome of interest. While transradial procedures may have other advantages (reduced access site complications/bleeding), the amount of radiation administered should also be considered with this approach.


Binita Shah is an interventional cardiologist, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA




Add New Comment

Most popular


Bioresorbable scaffolds have the potential “to be workhorse stents”
Thursday, 07 May 2015
Last year, the GHOST-EU registry indicated that the rate of scaffold thrombosis with the bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb, Abbott Vascular) was “not negilible”. However, as technological ... Bioresorbable scaffolds have the potential “to be workhorse stents”

Merit Medical Systems launches the Prelude Snap splittable sheath introducer
Wednesday, 03 Jun 2015
Merit Medical Systems has launched the Prelude Snap splittable sheath introducer, the design of which is based directly on physician feedback. Merit Medical Systems launches the Prelude Snap splittable sheath introducer

LowerMyDose website launches
Wednesday, 03 Jun 2015
LowerMyDose.com promotes peer-to-peer engagement through real-life experience sharing about the concerns of excessive and unnecessary radiation exposure. LowerMyDose website launches

Features


The importance of the PLATINUM DIVERSITY trial
Wednesday, 24 Jun 2015
The PLATINUM DIVERSITY trial was initiated last year with the aim of evaluating the clinical outcomes of an everolimus-eluting stent (Promus Premier, Boston Scientific) in patient populations that ... The importance of the PLATINUM DIVERSITY trial

The current status of transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement
Tuesday, 09 Jun 2015
The Melody transcatheter pulmonary valve (Medtronic), which received the CE mark in 2006 and FDA humanitarian device exemption approval in 2010, was recently granted FDA premarket approval. In this ... The current status of transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement

Profiles


Deepak L Bhatt
Tuesday, 09 Jun 2015
Deepak L Bhatt (Executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs, Brigham and Women’s H... Deepak L Bhatt

Flavio Ribichini
Thursday, 05 Mar 2015
Flavio Ribichini speaks to Cardiovascular News about being involved in the first use of primary ... Flavio Ribichini

Cardiac Rhythm News Vascular News Cardiovascular News Interventional News Spinal News NeuroNews
BIBA Medical BIBA MedTech Insights CX Symposium ilegx
Password Reminder

BIBA Medical, 526 Fulham Road, Fulham, London, SW6 5NR.
TEL: +44 (0)20 7736 8788 FAX: +44 (0)20 7736 8283 EMAIL: 
info@bibamedical.com
© BIBA Medical Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 2944429.
VAT registration number 730 6811 50.
Site Map | Terms and Conditions