A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Operator radiation exposure and physical discomfort during a right versus left radial approach for coronary interventions: a randomized evaluation. | LitMetric

Objectives: This study sought to assess radiation exposure and operator discomfort when using left radial approach (LRA) versus right radial approach (RRA) for coronary diagnostic and percutaneous interventions.

Background: The transradial approach is increasingly being adopted as the preferred vascular access for coronary interventions. Currently, most are performed using an RRA. This is in part due to the perceived increased operator physical discomforts as well increased radiation exposure with an LRA.

Methods: One hundred patients were randomized to an LRA or RRA. Each operator (n = 5) had an independent randomization process, and patients were stratified according to obesity status. Operator radiation was measured using separate sets of radiation dosimeter badges placed externally on the head and thyroid and internally on the sternum. Operator physical discomfort was surveyed at 2 time points: during vascular access and at the end of the procedure. Moderate to severe physical discomfort was defined as a score of >4.

Results: There were no significant differences in baseline and procedural variables between groups. There was a significant increase in external radiation exposure using the RRA versus LRA (head: median: 6.12 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.6 to 16.6] mRems vs. median: 12.0 [IQR: 6.4 to 22.0] mRems, p = 0.02; thyroid: median: 10.10 [IQR: 4.3 to 25] mRems vs. median: 18.70 [IQR: 11.0 to 38] mRems, p = 0.001). More discomfort was reported with the LRA during access (LRA: 22% vs. RRA: 4%; p = 0.017), but not during the procedure (LRA: 10.0% vs. RRA: 4.0%, p = 0.43). This difference was almost entirely noted in obese patients (LRA: 30.0% vs. RRA: 3.7%, p = 0.005).

Conclusions: LRA is as effective as RRA, showing a safer profile with decreased radiation exposure to the operator, at the expense of more operator discomfort only during vascular access and limited to obese patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.11.026DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

radiation exposure
20
physical discomfort
12
radial approach
12
vascular access
12
operator
8
operator radiation
8
left radial
8
coronary interventions
8
exposure operator
8
operator discomfort
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!