Search

Objective: In University Hospital Centre «Sestre milosrdnice® Zagreb transradial approach is traditionally used as a vascular approach for peripheral transluminal interventions.1 As shown in our previous reports transradial approach is found to be as safe as the transfemoral but with less complications and with shorter postprocedural hospitalization needed. The aim of the study was to determine the safety of the transradial approach and to correlate technical parametars (fluoroscopy time, radiation doses and the volume of contrast) between the group where the transradial approach was used as a single or as an additional approach for peripheral interventions and in transfemoral group. Methods: Between January 2011 and September 2016 at the UHC «Sestre milosrdnice®, Zagreb at the Department of Cardiovascular Diseases 120 diagnostic and interventional procedures were performed using the transradial approach. There were 74 men (62%), 31 (26%) suffered from diabetes mel- litus type II and 85 (71%) were active smokers. Results: In 34 procedures (mostly in patients with TASC B or C lesions) the transradial approach was used as one of the additional approaches for the intervention (average volume of used contrast per procedure 156 ml; mean fluoroscopy time 17 min; radiation doses 5286 mcGym2). In 13 cases the transradial approach was the main approach for the intervention, mostly in patients with TASC A or B type of lesiones (average volume of used contrast per procedure 146 mL; mean fluoroscopy time 9 min; radiation doses 5606 mcGym2). In 70 patients the transradial approach was used for diagnostic angiography (average volume of used contrast/procedure 176 mL; mean fluoroscopy time 8,2 min; radiation doses 2332 mcGym2). In 36 procedures (30%) coronary angiography was performed during the same procedure which could have influenced the results. Conclusion: This report shows feasibility of transradial approach for peripheral interventions. Concerns about safety due to radiation exposure and fluoroscopy time should not discourage operators from using the transradial approach for peripheral interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiographic contrast media, used during diagnostic or interventional coronary procedures, expose patients to large amounts of iodine. Recommended daily intake of iodine is proven to be several hundred times lower than the amount of iodine that patients recieve during routine interventional procedures. Such large quantities of iodine can, in patients that are susceptible, induce thyroid dysfunction. Supraphysiologic levels of iodine can induce either hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism. Although such adverse events, resulting in thyroid dysfunction, are not very frequent their number is growing due to a substantial increase in the number of interventional procedures that are performed. Thyroid dysfunction, resulting from iodine-containing contrast media application, is a topic that is not frequently elaborated in interventional publications or meetings. The aim of presentation is to show a case of a patient with very rare form of thyroid dysfunction after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome setting. Patient developed acute painfull thyroiditis with hyperthyreosis. We will further present available data on the prevalence and types of thyroid dysfunction related to contrast media exposure. We will discuss subsets of patients that are at a higher risk for radiocontrast-induced thyroid dysfunction. Principles of prophylaxis as well as of treatment of those clinical entities will also be adressed. In conclusion, we believe that the general awareness, about a problem of thyroid dysfunction after interventional procedures, should be raised. It is a problem affecting growing number of patients yet infrequently recognized and studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]