Search

Strict glycemic control improves outcomes in critically ill patients. We evaluated the hypothesis that strict glycemic control might be similarly beneficial after percutaneous coronary intervention. This study reports the correlation of periprocedural blood glucose with long-term survival in 1,746 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention from 1990 to 2003 in a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Previous studies have shown that the right radial approach encounters more tortuosity than the left radial approach during transradial coronary angiography. The objective of this study was to compare the procedural difficulty of the right and left radial approaches in the modern era with dedicated transradial catheters. One hundred ninety-three patients scheduled for transradial coronary angiography with normal Allen test results and without histories of coronary artery bypass grafting were randomized to the right or left radial approach. The choice of catheter was left to the discretion of the operator, with the preferred catheter being a dedicated transradial Optitorque catheter. The primary end point was procedural difficulty, defined as (1) hydrophilic or coronary wire use for tortuosity, (2) stiff wire use for the coronary engagement, (3) multiple catheters used, or (4) nonselective injection. The clinical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Procedural success was achieved in 98 of 101 (98%) in the right radial group and 91 of 92 (99%) in the left radial group. Procedural difficulty, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use were similar between the 2 groups. The use of a single catheter was more common in the right radial group (73% vs 18%, p <0.001). In conclusion, procedural success and difficulty were similar in the comparison groups. The right and left radial approaches are feasible and effective to perform coronary angiography and intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronary angiography is the gold standard for defining obstructive coronary disease. However, radiation exposure remains an unwanted hazard. Patients referred for coronary angiography with abdominal circumference <45 inches and glomerular filtration rate >60 ml/min were randomized to the fluorography (n[25) or cineangiography (n[25) group. Patients in the fluorography group underwent coronary angiography using retrospectively stored fluorography with repeat injection under cineangiography only when needed for better resolution per operator's discretion. Patients in the cineangiography group underwent coronary angiography using routine cineangiography. The primary end point was patient radiation exposure measured by radiochromic film. Secondary end points included the radiation output measurement of kerma-area product and air kerma at the interventional reference point (Ka,r) and operator radiation exposure measured by a dosimeter. Patient radiation exposure (158.2 mGy [76.5 to 210.2] vs 272.5 mGy [163.3 to 314.0], p [ 0.001), kerma-area product (1,323 mGy$m2 [826 to 1,765] vs 3,451 mGy$m2 [2,464 to 4,818], p <0.001), and Ka,r (175mGy [112 to 252] vs 558 mGy [313 to 621], p <0.001) were significantly lower in the fluorography compared with cineangiography group (42%, 62%, and 69% relative reduction, respectively). Operator radiation exposure trended in the same direction, although statistically nonsignificant (fluorography 2.35 mGy [1.24 to 6.30] vs cineangiography 5.03 mGy [2.48 to 7.80], p[ 0.059). In conclusion, the use of fluorography in a select group of patients during coronary angiography, with repeat injection under cineangiography only when needed, was efficacious at reducing patient radiation exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]