Search

Resumo Fundamento Os limiares de corte para a “relação do ciclo completo de repouso” (RFR) oscilam em diferentes séries, sugerindo que as características da população podem influenciá-los. Da mesma forma, foram documentados preditores de discordância entre a RFR e a reserva de fluxo fracionado (FFR). O Estudo RECOPA, mostrou que a capacidade diagnóstica está reduzida na “zona cinzenta” da RFR, tornando necessária a realização de FFR para descartar ou confirmar isquemia. Objetivos Determinar os preditores de discordância, integrar as informações que eles fornecem em um índice clínico-fisiológico: a “RFR Ajustada”, e comparar sua concordância com o FFR. Métodos Usando dados do Estudo RECOPA, os preditores de discordância em relação à FFR foram determinados na “zona cinzenta” da RFR (0,86 a 0,92) para construir um índice (“RFR Ajustada”) que pesaria a RFR juntamente com os preditores de discordância e avaliar sua concordância com a FFR. Resultados Foram avaliadas 156 lesões em 141 pacientes. Os preditores de discordância foram: doença renal crônica, cardiopatia isquêmica prévia, lesões não envolvendo a artéria descendente anterior esquerda e síndrome coronariana aguda. Embora limitada, a “RFR Ajustada” melhorou a capacidade diagnóstica em comparação com a RFR na “zona cinzenta” (AUC-RFR = 0,651 versus AUC-“RFR Ajustada” = 0,749), mostrando também uma melhora em todos os índices diagnósticos quando foram estabelecidos limiares de corte otimizados (sensibilidade: 59% a 68%; especificidade: 62% a 75%; acurácia diagnóstica: 60% a 71%; razão de verossimilhança positiva: 1,51 a 2,34; razão de verossimilhança negativa: 0,64 a 0,37). Conclusões Ajustar a RFR integrando as informações fornecidas pelos preditores de discordância para obter a “RFR Ajustada” melhorou a capacidade diagnóstica em nossa população. Mais estudos são necessários para avaliar se os índices clínico-fisiológicos melhoram a capacidade diagnóstica da RFR ou de outros índices coronarianos.

Introduction. Distal radial access for coronary procedures decreases hemostasis time, prevents radial occlusion, and improves patient comfort compared to conventional transradial access. Initially described for left distal radial access (lDRA), the right distal radial access (rDRA) is feasible. However, there are no comparative studies to date. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the access site on vascular access and procedural performance. Methods. From August 2020 to October 2021, coronary procedures performed through distal radial access were prospectively recorded. After propensity score matching, the rDRA and lDRA were compared. The primary endpoint was the proportion of approach success. The secondary endpoints included access time, coronary procedural success, radial spasm, exposition to ionizing radiation, patient comfort, and vascular access-related complications. Results. From a total of 385 procedures in 382 patients, after a propensity score matching, 182 procedures were compared between the rDRA and lDRA. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Compared to the lDRA, the rDRA presented similar approach success (96.7% vs. 96.7%, p=1.0), less access time (39 (25–60) sec vs. 50 (29–90) sec, p=0.018), comparable coronary procedural success after sheath placement (100% vs. 100%, p=1.000), and not statistically significant radial spasm (2.19% vs. 6.59%, p=0.148). No differences in dose-area product (32 (20–56.2) Gy.m2 vs. 32.3 (19.4–46.3) Gy.m2; p=0.472) and fluoroscopy time (4.4 (2.5–9.1) min vs. 4.3 (2.4–7.5) min, p=0.251) were detected between the groups. No vascular access-related complications were observed in any group. Conclusions. The rDRA, compared to the lDRA, had the same proportion of approach success and procedural performance, with a slight reduction in access time for patients undergoing coronary procedures.

Background. The resting full‐cycle ratio (RFR) is a novel resting index which in contrast to the gold standard (fractional flow reserve (FFR)) does not require maximum hyperemia induction. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the agreement between RFR and FFR with the currently recommended thresholds and to design a hybrid RFR-FFR ischemia detection strategy, allowing a reduction of coronary vasodilator use. Materials and Methods. Patients subjected to invasive physiological study in 9 Spanish centers were prospectively recruited between April 2019 and March 2020. Sensitivity and specificity studies were made to assess diagnostic accuracy between the recommended levels of RFR ≤0.89 and FFR ≤0.80 (primary objective) and to determine the RFR “grey zone” in order to define a hybrid strategy with FFR affording 95% global agreement compared with FFR alone (secondary objective). Results. A total of 380 lesions were evaluated in 311 patients. Significant correlation was observed (R2 = 0.81; P

Abstract Background: Coronary angiography with two catheters is the traditional strategy for diagnostic coronary procedures. TIG I catheter permits to cannulate both coronary arteries, avoiding exchanging catheters during coronary angiography by transradial access. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of one-catheter strategy, by avoiding catheter exchange, on coronary catheterization performance and economic costs. Methods: Transradial coronary diagnostic procedures conducted from January 2013 to June 2017 were collected. One-catheter strategy (TIG I catheter) and two-catheter strategy (left and right Judkins catheters) were compared. The volume of iodinated contrast administered was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included radial spasm, procedural duration (fluoroscopy time) and exposure to ionizing radiation (dose-area product and air kerma). Direct economic costs were also evaluated. For statistical analyses, two-tailed p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: From a total of 1,953 procedures in 1,829 patients, 252 procedures were assigned to one-catheter strategy and 1,701 procedures to two-catheter strategy. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. One-catheter strategy required less iodinated contrast [primary endpoint; (60-105)-mL vs. 92 (64-120)-mL; p < 0.001] than the two-catheter strategy. Also, the one-catheter group presented less radial spasm (5.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.022) and shorter fluoroscopy time [3.9 (2.2-8.0)-min vs. 4.8 (2.9-8.3)-min, p = 0.001] and saved costs [149 (140-160)-€/procedure vs. 171 (160-183)-€/procedure; p < 0.001]. No differences in dose-area product and air kerma were detected between the groups. Conclusions: One-catheter strategy, with TIG I catheter, improves coronary catheterization performance and reduces economic costs compared to traditional two-catheter strategy in patients referred for coronary angiography.