Radiation Exposure and Vascular Access in Acute …...2017/03/16 · Sardella G, Tebaldi M,...
Transcript of Radiation Exposure and Vascular Access in Acute …...2017/03/16 · Sardella G, Tebaldi M,...
Accepted Manuscript
Radiation Exposure and Vascular Access in Acute Coronary Syndromes: TheRADMatrix Trial
Alessandro Sciahbasi, MD, PhD, Enrico Frigoli, MD, Alessandro Sarandrea, Eng,Martina Rothenbühler, M. Sc., Paolo Calabrò, MD, PhD, Alessandro Lupi, MD,Francesco Tomassini, MD, Bernardo Cortese, MD, Stefano Rigattieri, MD, PhD,Enrico Cerrato, MD, Dennis Zavalloni, MD, Antonio Zingarelli, MD, Paolo Calabria,MD, Paolo Rubartelli, MD, Gennaro Sardella, MD, Matteo Tebaldi, MD, StephanWindecker, MD, Peter Jüni, MD, Dik Heg, PhD, Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD
PII: S0735-1097(17)36042-4
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.018
Reference: JAC 23519
To appear in: Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Received Date: 16 February 2017
Revised Date: 8 March 2017
Accepted Date: 10 March 2017
Please cite this article as: Sciahbasi A, Frigoli E, Sarandrea A, Rothenbühler M, Calabrò P, Lupi A,Tomassini F, Cortese B, Rigattieri S, Cerrato E, Zavalloni D, Zingarelli A, Calabria P, Rubartelli P,Sardella G, Tebaldi M, Windecker S, Jüni P, Heg D, Valgimigli M, Radiation Exposure and VascularAccess in Acute Coronary Syndromes: The RADMatrix Trial, Journal of the American College ofCardiology (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.018.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service toour customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergocopyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Pleasenote that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and alllegal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Radiation Exposure and Vascular Access in Acute Coronary Syndromes:
The RADMatrix Trial
1Alessandro Sciahbasi, MD, PhD,
2Enrico Frigoli, MD,
3Alessandro Sarandrea, Eng,
4Martina Rothenbühler, M. Sc.,
5Paolo Calabrò, MD, PhD,
6Alessandro Lupi MD,
7Francesco Tomassini, MD,
8Bernardo Cortese, MD,
1Stefano Rigattieri, MD, PhD,
7Enrico Cerrato, MD,
9Dennis Zavalloni, MD,
10Antonio Zingarelli, MD,
11Paolo
Calabria, MD, 12
Paolo Rubartelli, MD, 13
Gennaro Sardella, MD, 14
Matteo Tebaldi,
MD,15
Stephan Windecker, MD,4Peter Jüni, MD,
4Dik Heg, PhD,
15Marco Valgimigli,
MD, PhD.
1Interventional Cardiology, Sandro Pertini Hospital, ASL RM2, Rome – Italy,
2Eustrategy Association, Forlì – Italy,
3HSE Management, Rome – Italy,
4CTU Bern,
and Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine – University of Bern – Switzerland, 5Department of Cardio-Thoracic Sciences, Second University of Naples – Italy,
6Cardiology, ASL VCO, Domodossola – Italy,
7Department of Cardiology, Infermi
Hospital, Rivoli – Italy, 8Interventional Cardiology, Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Milan –
Italy, 9Humanitas Research Hospital, IRCCS, Rozzano – Italy,
10Interventional
Cardiology Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino, IST, Genova – Italy, 11
Cardiology Unit,
Misericordia Hospital, Grosseto – Italy, 12
Villa Scassi Hospital, Genova – Italy, 13
Departmentof Cardiovascular Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome – Italy, 14
Cardiology Unit, AziendaOspedalieraUniversitaria di Ferrara – Italy, 15
Swiss
Cardiovascular Center, Bern University Hospital – Switzerland
The MATRIX program is conducted with support from The Medicines Company and
Terumo.
Running title: Radiation exposure and PCI
Address for correspondence:
Dr. Marco Valgimigli
Swiss Cardiovascular Center Bern
Bern University Hospital
3010 Bern, Switzerland
Telephone: +41 31 632 96 53
Fax: +41 31 632 47 71
Email: [email protected]
Conflicts of Interest
Dr. Rigattieri reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work;
Dr. Cortese reports personal fees from The Medicines Company, during the conduct
of the study; personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants and personal fees from Abbott
Vascular, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AB Medica, grants and
non-financial support from Innova HTS, grants and non-financial support from
Kardia, grants and non-financial support from Stentys, grants from Hexacath, grants
from Amgen, outside the submitted work; Dr. Windecker reports personal fees from
ASTRA ZENECA, grants from Biotronik, grants and personal fees from Boston
Scientific, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants from Edwards life sciences,
grants from Medtronic, outside the submitted work; Dr.Jüni reports other from
Abbott Vascular, other from Biosensors, other from Medtronic, other from Johnson &
Johnson, other from Ablynx, other from Amgen, other from AstraZeneca, other from
Boehringer-Ingelheim, other from Eisai, other from Eli Lilly, other from Exelixis,
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
other from Geron, other from Gilead Sciences, other from Nestlé, other from
Novartis, other from Novo Nordisc, other from Padma, other from Roche, other from
Schering-Plough, other from St. Jude Medical, other from Swiss Cardio Technologies,
outside the submitted work; and Unpaid steering committee or statistical executive
committee member of trials funded by Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Medtronic and
Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Valgimigli reports grants from Terumo, grants from The
Medicines Company, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from
Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Terumo, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees
from Biosensors, outside the submitted work.
The other authors report nothing to disclose.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Abstract
Background: It remains unclear whether radial increases the risk of operator or
patient radiation exposure when performed by expert operators
Objectives: To determine whether radial access increases radiation exposure
Methods: We randomly assigned 8404 patients, with or without ST-segment
elevation acute coronary syndrome, to radial or femoral access for coronary
angiography and percutaneous intervention, and collected fluoroscopy time and dose
area product (DAP). In the radiation sub-study (RAD-MATRIX), we anticipated that
13 or more operators, each wearing a thorax (primary endpoint), wrist and head
(secondary endpoints) lithium fluoride thermo luminescent dosimeter and
randomizing at least 13 patients per access site were needed to establish non-
inferiority of radial versus femoral access.
Results: Among eighteen operators, performing 777 procedures in 767 patients, the
non-inferiority primary endpoint was not achieved (p-value for non-
inferiority=0.843). Operator equivalent dose at the thorax was significantly higher
with radial than femoral access (77 µSv [IQR:40-112] vs. 41 µSv [IQR:23-59],
p=0.02). After normalization of operator radiation dose by fluoroscopy time or DAP,
the difference remained significant. Radiation dose at wrist or head did not differ
between radial and femoral access. Thorax operator dose did not differ in the right
radial (84 µSv [IQR:47-146]) compared to the left radial access (52 µSv [IQR:33-92];
p=0.15) In the overall MATRIX population, fluoroscopy time (10 min; IQR:6-16 vs.
9 min IQR:5-15; p<0.0001] and DAP—available in 7570 procedures and 6902
patients—(65 Gy*cm2 [IQR:29-120] vs. 59 Gy*cm
2 [26-110]; p=0.0001) were higher
with radial as compared to femoral access.
Conclusions: Radial, as compared with femoral access is associated with greater
operator and patient radiation exposure when performed by expert operators in current
practice. Radial operators and institutions should be sensitized towards radiation risks
and adopt adjunctive radio-protective measures.
Key Words: Radiation dose –Radial access –Femoral access –Acute coronary
syndromes –PCI
Abbreviations
ACS: acute coronary syndrome
DAP: dose area product
MATRIX: Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site
and Systemic Implementation of angioX
PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention
STEMI: ST-segment elevationmyocardial infarction
Condensed abstract
Operator radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary procedures for acute
coronary syndromes was evaluated in 18 operators participating in the MATRIX trial.
Operator equivalent dose was measured after randomization for vascular access
(radial vs femoral). The radial approach was associated with a significant higher
operator radiation dose compared to femoral access. In term of patient exposure,
fluoroscopy time and dose area product were significantly higher with radial as
compared to femoral access. Radial operators should pay special attention to radio-
protective measures in order to minimize the effects of radiation to patients, staff and
themselves.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4
Introduction
The use of radial, instead of femoral, access for coronary angiography and percutaneous
coronary intervention (PCI) has been associated to lower risk of bleeding, vascular complications
and greater survival in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive
management(1,2). European clinical practice guidelines endorse the use of radial access in
patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management with
a class I recommendation over femoral access (3), and the uptake of radial access is increasing
worldwide (4).
However, prior studies have raised concerns over the increased risk of radiation exposure
for both patients and operators with radial instead of femoral access (5). Only a minority of
randomized controlled studies evaluated radiation doses (5), especially in ACS patients( 6) and
none used dedicated dosimeters to assess operator exposure. As part of the MATRIX
(Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic
Implementation of angioX) programme (NCT01433627), (7) we collected fluoroscopy time and
dose area product and equipped radial operators consenting to participate with dedicated
dosimeters during study conduct to assess operator radiation dose with radial or femoral access.
Methods
Study design and population
The design of the MATRIX trial and of the radiation (RAD-MATRIX) substudy has been
previously reported (7,8). Briefly, all patients with an ACS with or without ST-segment elevation
myocardial infarction were randomized to radial or femoral access (see web extra material). Only
expert radial operators were involved in the RAD-MATRIX substudy.
Study protocol and randomization
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5
Before the coronary angiography all patients were centrally randomized (1:1) to radial or
femoral access for diagnostic angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention if clinically
indicated. The randomization sequence was computer generated and modified using
minimisation on intended new or ongoing use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, presence or absence of
STEMI, troponin positivity and anticipated use of immediate PCI in non-STEMI patients.
Operators participating in the radiation sub-study were to follow central randomization in regards
to radial or femoral access for the primary endpoint comparison (operator radiation exposure at
thorax), and for the patient radiation exposure comparison. A further randomization was
performed in patients centrally allocated to radial access based on the patient identification (ID)
number with odd ID numbers assigned to right radial and even ID numbers to left radial access.
These patient IDs were automatically generated by the centralized web-based randomization and
data capture system, so were not under control of the study personnel. This allowed a fairly
balanced proportion of right radial access versus left radial access, used to assess whether the use
of left radial as compared to right radial is associated to lower radiation burden (secondary
endpoint).
Procedures
Access site management during and after the diagnostic or therapeutic procedure was left
to the discretion of the treating physician and closure devices were allowed as per local practice.
Standard operator radioprotection was ensured using a lead apron, a thyroid lead collar, lower
body X-ray curtain fixed on the angiographic table and an upper mobile leaded glass suspended
from the ceiling. Staged procedures were allowed, with no restriction with respect to timing,
during which the protocol mandated that the access site remained as originally allocated.
Radiation Measurement
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6
Radiation measures collected were fluoroscopy time (expressed in minutes) and the DAP
(expressed in Gy*cm2). The DAP is the product of the absorbed dose to air and the cross-
sectional area of the X-ray field for all segments of an interventional radiology procedure. This
parameter was measured using specially designed ionization chambers mounted at the collimator
system and calculated by the software present in each angiographic system. DAP provides a
good estimation of the total radiation energy delivered to a patient during a procedure and is
correlated with the long-term stochastic risk of cancer (9).
The operator radiation exposure was measured for each participating operator with three
dedicated lithium fluoride thermo-luminescent dosimeters with a range of linearity from 1 µGy
to 10 Gy, separate for femoral, left radial and right radial randomized access site. They were to
be worn during each procedure by the participating operator on the left wrist, at mid thorax level,
in the breast pocket outside the lead apron and at head level (in the middle front to measure the
eye dose) (Fig S1- S2). The dosimeters used different detectors according to their location
(superficial for the wrist, 3 mm depth for the eye and 10 mm depth for the thorax). Each
dosimeter was distributed to operators in a sealed envelope and was labelled with operator’s
code, access site (femoral, right or left radial) and body destination (eye, thorax or wrist – 3
locations time 3 access sites equals 9 dosimeters per operator). No protocol violation was
declared by participating operators regarding type and position of dosimeters throughout study
execution. All dosimeters were collected for central reading at TECNORAD co. (Verona, Italy)
and represent cumulative exposure during all procedures performed by the operator, separate for
femoral, left radial, and right radial randomized access site. After central reading and correction
for the radiation weighting factor (for X rays this factor is 1) the results were expressed as
Equivalent doses in microSievert. The Equivalent dose at thorax was also converted in operator
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7
effective dose dividing it by a factor 33 according with an apron thickness 0.5 mm lead
equivalent with a tube voltage under the table (10). Patient effective dose has been calculated
using a conversion factor of 0.20 mSv/Gy*cm2, as previously shown (11).
Statistical analysis
The primary non-inferiority hypothesis was that radial access was not associated to higher
operator radiation dose as compared to femoral access(8). Since dosimeters measure the
cumulative procedural radiation dose for each operator, the sample size was calculated for the
number of operators (i.e. dosimeters) needed rather than for the number of procedures or
patients. Using previous information(12), it was estimated that at least 13 operator dosimeters
were needed in order to prove non-inferiority with anabsolute non-inferiority margin of 25 µSv,
one-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 80%power. An arbitrary minimum of 13 procedures per
operator and per main access site was mandated to minimize the risks of imbalances due to
variation in the complexity of the diagnostic or therapeutic procedures within each operator. The
non-inferiority test for the primary outcome was performed using a one-sided unpaired t-test to
estimate the upper bound of the confidence interval of the difference in thorax radiation dosage
comparing radial versus femoral on the operator level. Differently, superiority testing for the
primary end-point was performed using two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum unpaired test. A further
secondary analysis using a paired Wilcoxon rank-sum test was also performed. Details on the
statistical analysis are available in the web extra material.
Endpoints
The primary end-point of the study was the cumulative operator radiation dose at the
thorax. Secondary end-points included operator radiation dose at left wrist or at head level,
patient procedural radiation dose assessed with DAP values as well as total fluoroscopy time.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8
Role of the funding source
The MATRIX program was designed by the last author and approved by the institutional
review board at each participating center. The RAD MATRIX substudy(8) was pre-specified in
the main study protocol and approved by all participating centers as amended number 5 to the
original study protocol. MATRIX was sponsored by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology
(GISE), a nonprofit organization, and received grant support from The Medicines Company and
TERUMO (see Online Appendix). The sponsor and funders had no role in study design, data
collection, data monitoring, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report. Sponsor and
companies had no role in study design, data collection, data monitoring, analysis, interpretation,
or writing of the report. AS, MR, DH and MV had unrestricted access to all the data of the trial.
AS and MV had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Results
Between October 2011 and November 2014, 8404 patients in 78 centers in Italy, the
Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden were randomly allocated to radial (4197 patients) or femoral
access (4207 patients). DAP was collected for 6902 patients and a total of 7570 procedures
(Online Figure 3). A total of 767 patients undergoing 777 procedures were included in the
operator radiation sub-study (RAD MATRIX) performed by 18 operators (Online Figure 3).
Four operators refused to further randomize radial patients to left or right radial access (due to
the unwillingness to sustain a prolonged uncomfortable position during left radial access in three
operators, and in one due to perceived lack of clinical equipoise between left and right radial
access) and were excluded from this sub-analysis. As a result, 252 radial procedures were
performed in 250 patients by 14 operators, which were allocated to left radial (131 procedures in
130 patients) or right radial access site (121 procedures in 120 patients) (Online Figure 3)
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
9
Procedural Characteristics
Clinical characteristics between radial and femoral groups were similar (Online Table 1).
Percutaneous coronary intervention was attempted in more than 80% of the patients in each
group (Table 1). Patients allocated to the radial group more frequently received the non-
randomly allocated access than patients in the femoral group (7% vs. 5%: p=0.0002). In the RAD
MATRIX subsample, cross over rates were balanced in the two access groups (Table 1).
Patient Radiation Exposure
Median fluoroscopy time was higher in the radial (10.2 min; IQR: 6-16) compared to
femoral group (9.1 min; IQR: 5.1-15, p<0.0001, Table 1). Median DAP values were also higher
in the radial (64.7 Gy*cm2; IQR: 28.6-120.3) compared to the femoral group (59.1 Gy*cm2
;IQR: 25.9-109.5, p=0.0001, Table 1). Mean difference of DAP values between radial and
femoral access stratified for pre-specified subgroups is shown in Online Figure 4. The results
were consistent according to the angiographic system employed (Online Table 3). Fluoroscopy
time and DAP values were consistently correlated in the radial (R=0.56) as well as in the femoral
group (R=0.56) (Online Figure 5).
Operator Radiation Exposure
Radial or Femoral Access
The primary non-inferiority hypothesis was not reached (mean difference 34.34 µSv with
an upper 95% confidence limit of 49.57); p-value for non-inferiority= 0.843); median operator
dose per procedure at the thorax level was higher in the radial compared to femoral access group
(77 µSv; IQR: 39.9-112 vs. 41 µSv IQR: 23.4-58.5, respectively, p-value for superiority= 0.019,
Central Illustration and Table 2). A paired analysis yielded identical results. After
normalization of the operator dose either for fluoroscopy times or DAP, the difference between
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10
radial and femoral access remained significant (Table 2). Procedural operator doses at left wrist
and head levels did not differ, although both were numerically higher with radial access (Central
Illustration and Table 2). The higher radiation dose with radial as compared to femoral access
was consistent across individual operators (Online Figure 5).
Left or Right Radial Access
The baseline and procedural features, including DAP and fluoroscopy time, were similar
between left and right radial access groups (Online Table 2). Median procedural operator dose at
the thorax did not differ in the right radial (84 µSv) compared to the left radial access (52 µSv;
p=0.15; Table 3 and Figure 1). Compared to femoral access, radiation dose did not differ
compared to the left radial access, whereas was significantly higher in the right radial access
(Online Tables 4 and 5). The radiation doses at wrist and head did not differ in the right radial
compared to the left radial access group (Table 3 and Figure 1).
Discussion
Our study is to date the largest study evaluating the radiation exposure in patients and
operators during percutaneous coronary interventions with radial or femoral access. Our main
finding is that in the setting of ACS with or without ST-segment elevation, operator and patient
radiation exposure is higher with radial compared to femoral access. The average increase in
radiation exposure for patients undergoing radial instead of femoral access was relatively small,
in the range of 10%. However, the radial, compared to femoral access, was associated to an
almost two-fold increase in operator radiation exposure at the thorax level. Our results confirm
previous observations (13) that DAP is a weak predictor of operator exposure.
In a recent meta-analysis, the difference in patient radiation exposure with radial as
compared to femoral access was shown to narrow over time, suggesting that this difference may
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11
not be present in current practice with experienced radial operators (5). Our findings support the
notion that this difference persists in contemporary practice with experienced operators and it
may be much greater than previously anticipated especially for complex multivessel intervention,
such in non-ST segment elevation MI patients or those with diabetes mellitus.
There are multiple potential explanations for the higher patient and operator radiation
exposure associated with radial access. Procedures undertaken via radial access are technically
more demanding for operators, especially in case of tortuosity of the subclavian-aortic axis,
which can be observed in up to 30% of patients. More intense catheter manipulation is therefore
required to overcome the vascular tortuosity and engage the coronary ostia; while the success
rate in expert hands is similar to femoral access these maneuvers increase the fluoroscopy time
and consequently the radiation dose to patients and operators. Our study confirms previous
findings that fluoroscopy time and DAP are correlated and that both are significantly higher in
the radial group (5,6).
Other aspects should be considered regarding operator radiation exposure between radial
and femoral access. Operator position with respect to X-ray tube and patient can affect radiation
exposure by a factor of 40 during percutaneous procedures (14). At variance with operators’
position during femoral access, which is well standardized, operators’ position during radial
access can substantially vary across centers or even within operators of the same center. In many
instances, in order to better manipulate the catheter at insertion site in the radial artery, operators
are closer to the X-ray tube and are less shielded by the leaded glass mobile panel. Also, the
upper ceiling leaded glass is frequently positioned closer to the patient during radial instead of
femoral access, in order to have direct access to the arterial sheath. Unfortunately, this translates
into a less effective shielding capability from scatter radiation to the operator.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12
We did not observe a clear difference in terms of operator radiation dose between right
and left radial. Several studies have compared operator radiation dose between radial left or right
with inconsistent results (15-19); some showed less operator radiation dose with left instead of
right radial but others reported similar radiation dose or higher operator dose with left radial.
Various operator positions with respect to X-ray tube and inconsistent locations of mobile
shielding devices across operators during right or left radial access may account for such
heterogeneous observations.
The absolute increase in DAP values for patients receiving radial instead of femoral
access was 5.6 Gy*cm2. This difference is small and when expressed in terms of patient effective
dose is around 1.12mSv. Considering an additional lifetime cancer risk of 2.5%/Sv (1:40000)
between age 40 and 60 years (20), radial access would be associated with an increased lifetime
cancer risk of 1:35714 (0.0028%). One could consider this an acceptable risk considering that
radial instead of femoral access may avoid 6 deaths for every 1000 patients treated (1).
At variance from patients, interventional cardiologists perform thousands of procedures
during their lifetime, with the potential for a cumulative effect. Operator exposure was almost
twice higher with radial than femoral. Most of the operator body is covered with dedicated
shields, such as lead apron and thyroid collar but some operator body regions, such as the head
or arms, remain unprotected and directly exposed to radiation. Since a direct correlation between
the dose and the risk of cancer even for very low dose of radiation exposure has been suggested
(11) and taking also the deterministic risk of radiation into account (i.e. the cumulative risk of
cataract) (21) our findings should raise caution within the medical community; the incremental
operator effective dose for a single procedure undertaken with radial instead of femoral access is
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
13
in the range of 1.1 µSv, corresponding to an additive 330 µSv every 300 procedures. This is
similar to an additive radiation exposure of 17 chest X rays.
Some studies suggested significant reductions in operator radiation doses using
adjunctive protective drapes placed on patients (22-24) during radial access. Adjunctive personal
protections as non-lead protective caps that reduce the head radiation doses should be also
considered (25).
Some limitations of our study should be considered. The use of thermoluminescent
dosimeters allows only a cumulative analysis of the operator radiation dose. Hence, further
analyses of the radiation dose in regards to the complexity of each single procedure performed
was not possible, e.g. to target improvements in procedures to reduce radiation exposure. The use
of electronic dosimeters that show radiation dose at the end of each procedure would have
allowed a better understanding, which factors might ameliorate, or even negate, the differences
in radiation exposure observed between radial and femoral access. However, thermoluminescent
dosimeters allowed operators to remain blinded to study results. As per study protocol, we did
not standardize patient preparation and set-up for radial access but asked each operator to follow
his or her routine practice. The inclusion of 18 experienced operators from different centers
likely provided a representative sample of current practice with radial access, but cannot be
translated to less experienced operators or operators with limited training in the radial access site.
The consistency of higher operator radiation exposure across participating operators with radial
instead of femoral access suggests that the greater radiation dose is a common issue in current
practice. The null finding of right versus left right radial comparison in terms of operator
exposure may reflect a power issue and requires further investigation.
Conclusions
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14
In conclusion, our study shows that radial access is associated with higher operator and
patient radiation exposure compared to femoral access. Radial operators and institutions should
be sensitized towards radiation risks and adopt adjunctive radio-protective measures.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
15
References
1. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabro P et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with
acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.
Lancet 2015;385:2465-76.
2. Mehta SR, Jolly SS, Cairns J et al. Effects of radial versus femoral artery access in
patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation. J Am CollCardiol
2012;60:2490-9.
3. Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute
coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force
for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-
Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2016;37:267-315.
4. Adamo M, Byrne RA, Baumbach A, Haude M, Windecker S, Valgimigli M. Assessing
the cardiology community position on transradial intervention and the use of bivalirudin in
patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: results of an EAPCI
survey. EuroIntervention 2016;12:1154-1163.
5. Plourde G, Pancholy SB, Nolan J et al. Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial
access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2015;386:2192-203.
6. Jolly SS, Cairns J, Niemela K et al. Effect of radial versus femoral access on radiation
dose and the importance of procedural volume: a substudy of the multicenter randomized
RIVAL trial. JACC CardiovascInterv 2013;6:258-66.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16
7. Valgimigli M, investigators M. Design and rationale for the Minimizing Adverse
haemorrhagic events by TRansradial access site and systemic Implementation of angioX
program. AmHeart J 2014;168:838-45 e6.
8. Sciahbasi A, Calabro P, Sarandrea A et al. Randomized comparison of operator radiation
exposure comparing transradial and transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary
procedures: rationale and design of the minimizing adverse haemorrhagic events by TRansradial
access site and systemic implementation of angioX - RAdiation Dose study (RAD-MATRIX).
CardiovascRevasc Med 2014;15:209-13.
9. Hirshfeld JW, Jr., Balter S, Brinker JA et al. ACCF/AHA/HRS/SCAI clinical competence
statement on physician knowledge to optimize patient safety and image quality in
fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures: a report of the American College of
Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force
on Clinical Competence and Training. Circulation 2005;111:511-32.
10. NCRP Report N° 122. Use of Personal Monitors to Estimate Effective Dose Equivalent
and Effective Dose to Workers For External Exposure to Low-LET Radiation. NCRP Report
1995; 1-42
11. Picano E, Vano E, Rehani MM et al. The appropriate and justified use of medical
radiation in cardiovascular imaging: a position document of the ESC Associations of
Cardiovascular Imaging, Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Electrophysiology. Eur
Heart J 2014;35:665-72.
12. Lange HW, von Boetticher H. Randomized comparison of operator radiation exposure
during coronary angiography and intervention by radial or femoral approach. Catheter
CardiovascInterv 2006;67:12-6.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
17
13. Casey M, Malone D. The value of digital personal dosimeters in
angiography/interventional radiology: preliminary experience. Rad Prot Dosim 2001;94:93-94.
14. Theocharopoulos N, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Manios E, Vardas P, Gourtsoyiannis N.
Occupational exposure in the electrophysiology laboratory: quantifying and minimizing radiation
burden. Br J Radiol 2006;79:644-51.
15. Kado H, Patel AM, Suryadevara S et al. Operator radiation exposure and physical
discomfort during a right versus left radial approach for coronary interventions: a randomized
evaluation. JACC CardiovascInterv2014;7:810-6.
16. Sciahbasi A, Romagnoli E, Trani C et al. Operator radiation exposure during
percutaneous coronary procedures through the left or right radial approach: the TALENT
dosimetricsubstudy. CircCardiovascInterv2011;4:226-31.
17. Kallinikou Z, Puricel SG, Ryckx N et al. Radiation Exposure of the Operator During
Coronary Interventions (from the RADIO Study). Am J Cardiol2016;118:188-94.
18. Dominici M, Diletti R, Milici C et al. Operator exposure to x-ray in left and right radial
access during percutaneous coronary procedures: OPERA randomised study. Heart 2013;99:480-
4.
19. Pancholy SB, Joshi P, Shah S, Rao SV, Bertrand OF, Patel TM. Effect of Vascular
Access Site Choice on Radiation Exposure During Coronary Angiography: The REVERE Trial
(Randomized Evaluation of Vascular Entry Site and Radiation Exposure). JACC
CardiovascInterv 2015;8:1189-96.
20. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Ann ICRP 1991;21:1-201.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
18
21. Authors on behalf of I, Stewart FA, Akleyev AV et al. ICRP publication 118: ICRP
statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs--
threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann ICRP 2012;41:1-322.
22. Musallam A, Volis I, Dadaev S et al. A randomized study comparing the use of a pelvic
lead shield during trans-radial interventions: Threefold decrease in radiation to the operator but
double exposure to the patient. Catheter CardiovascInterv 2015;85:1164-70.
23. Lange HW, von Boetticher H. Reduction of operator radiation dose by a pelvic lead
shield during cardiac catheterization by radial access: comparison with femoral access. JACC
CardiovascInterv2012;5:445-9.
24. Sciahbasi A, Rigattieri S, Sarandrea A, et al. Radiation dose absorbed by operators during
transradial percutaneous coronary procedures comparing different protective drapes: the
RADIATION study. EuroIntervention. 2017 Jan 3;12(13). pii: EIJ-D-16-00288. doi:
10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00288.
25. Alazzoni A, Gordon CL, Syed J et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of Radiation
Protection With a Patient Lead Shield and a Novel, Non lead Surgical Cap for Operators
Performing Coronary Angiography or Intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8:e002384.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
19
Figure Legends
Central Illustration: Operator radiation exposure for radial and femoral access. Red boxes:
patients randomized to the femoral group. Grey boxes: patients randomized to the radial group.
Figure 1: Operator radiation exposure for left and right radial access. Dark grey boxes:
patients randomized to the radial right group. Light grey boxes: patients randomized to the radial
left group.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
20
Table 1. Procedural characteristics of the full MATRIX population and the RAD-MATRIX subsample MATRIX RAD-MATRIX
Radial Femoral P Radial Femoral P Operators
141
155
18
18
Patients 3448 3454 373 393 Procedures 3773 3797 379 398 PCI attempted 3073 (81%) 3094 (82%) 0.971 320 (84%) 324 (81%) 0.284 Number of diagnostic catheters
1.0 ± 0.6 1.0 ± 0.6 0.04 1.0 ± 0.6 1.0 ± 0.6 0.664
Number of guiding catheters 1.6 ± 0.8 1.6 ± 0.7 <0.0001 1.5 ± 0.6 1.6 ± 0.6 0.034 Cross over 273 (7%) 197 (5%) 0.0002 11 (3%) 14 (4%) 0.764 Contrast dose (ml) 163 ± 82 164 ± 86 0.833 170 ± 86 162 ± 81 0.471 Fluoroscopy time (min) 10.2 (6-16) 9.1 (5.1-15) <0.0001 10 (6-16) 8 (5-14) 0.0004 DAP (Gy*cm2) 64.7 (28.6-120.3) 59.1 (25.9-109.5) 0.0001 74.1 (33.7-130) 67.5 (24.5-114.6) 0.751 Patient Effective dose (mSv) 12.9 (5.7-24.1) 11.8 (5.2-21.9) <0.0001 14.8 (6.7-26) 13.5 (4.9-22.9) 0.238 PCI Completed 3072 (81%) 3093 (82%) 0.971 320 (84%) 324 (81%) 0.284 Treated artery Left main 149 (5%) 122 (4%) 0.082 17 (5%) 21 (7%) 0.878 LAD 1541 (50%) 1534 (50%) 0.656 161 (50%) 154 (48%) 0.463 Left circumflex 876 (29%) 861 (28%) 0.554 87 (27%) 87 (27%) 0.908 Right coronary 1029 (34%) 1029 (33%) 0.850 110 (34%) 112 (35%) 0.868 Number of stents 1.5 ± 0.9 1.5 ± 0.9 0.070 1.6 ± 0.9 1.4± 0.9 0.030 Total stent length (mm) 68 ± 44 67 ± 43 0.276 75 ± 46 68 ± 43 0.131 Thromboaspiration 798 (26%) 827 (27%) 0.498 96 (30%) 88 (27%) 0.681 Results expressed as means± standard deviation, median with interquartile range, or absolute number with percentage in brackets. 652 patients underwent two procedures and eight patients underwent three procedures during index hospitalization The p-values are estimated accounting for clusters at patient level in the MATRIX population and for clusters both at patient and operator level in the RAD-MATRIX subsample. DAP, dose area product; LAD, left anterior descending; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
21
Table 2. Operator radiation exposure for radial and femoral access
Radial access
Femoral access
Difference between expected and actual sum of ranks for femoral access
P
Operators
18
18
Procedures 379 398 Median number of procedures 19.5 (9-23) 16 (10-36) 6 0.849 Thorax dose per procedure (µSv) 77.3 (39.9-112) 40.6 (23.4-58.5) 74 0.019 Wrist dose per procedure (µSv) 117 (68.3-197.8) 74.6 (44.2-115.3) 48.5 0.125 Eye dose per procedure (µSv) 33.9 (14.2-44.8) 20.6 (9.6-32.7) 46 0.146 Operator Effective dose (µSv) 2.3 (1.2-3.4) 1.2 (0.7-1.8) 74 0.019 Dose normalized by FT(µSv/min) Thorax dose 5.6 (4-9.8) 3.6 (3-4.9) 69 0.029 Wrist dose 8.8 (6.6-13.7) 5.3 (4.6-9.3) 41 0.195 Eye dose 2.4 (1.5-3.4) 1.7 (1-2.2) 37 0.242 Dose normalized by DAP (µSv/Gy*cm²) Thorax dose 0.8 (0.6-1.1) 0.5 (0.3-0.6) 77 0.015 Wrist dose 1.2 (0.9-2.3) 0.9 (0.6-1.3) 48 0.129 Eye dose 0.3 (0.2-0.5) 0.3 (0.1-0.4) 39 0.217
Results expressed as median with interquartile range The p-values refer to superiority and come from two-sided unpaired Wilcoxon rank-sum test. DAP, dose area product; FT, fluoroscopy time
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
22
Table 3. Operator radiation exposure for left and right radial access
Left radial access
Right radial access
Difference between expected and actual sum of ranks for right radial access
P
Operators
14
14
Procedures 131 121 Median number of procedures 6.5 (4-10) 9 (2-14) -14 0.519 Thorax dose per procedure (µSv) 51.7 (33.2-91.9) 84.2 (47.1-146.1) -31 0.154 Wrist dose per procedure (µSv) 86.5 (52.6-139.8) 152.6 (89.4-214.6) -35 0.108 Eye dose per procedure (µSv) 14.8 (11-34.8) 38.6 (21.1-50) -38.5 0.077 Operator Effective Dose (µSv) 1.6 (1-2.8) 2.6 (1.4-4.4) -31.0 0.016 Dose normalized by FT (µSv/minute) Thorax dose 4.1 (2.5-7.3) 7.1 (4-10.8) -36.5 0.093 Wrist dose 8.8 (4.6-11) 11.5 (6.4-15.4) -30 0.168 Eye dose 1.3 (0.6-2.9) 2.6 (1.3-3.9) -32 0.141 Dose normalized by DAP (µSv/Gy*cm²) Thorax dose 0.6 (0.4-0.8) 0.7 (0.5-1.1) -27 0.215 Wrist dose 1.0 (0.6-1.2) 1.2 (0.9-2.3) -25.5 0.241 Eye dose 0.2 (0.1-0.5) 0.3 (0.2-0.5) -17 0.435
Results expressed as median with interquartile range The p-values come from two-sided unpaired Wilcoxon rank-sum test. DAP, dose area product; FT, fluoroscopy time
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Radiation Exposure and Vascular Access in in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A
Randomised Multicentre Trial
Sciahbasi,et al.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MATRIX Program Organization: list of investigators
Funding
MATRIX Program Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Additional Details on Statistical Analyses
Table S1. Clinical and procedural characteristics of the MATRIX population and the
RAD-MATRIX subsample
Table S2. Clinical and procedural characteristics of RAD-MATRIX subsample for
right or left radial access
Table S3. Radiation dose according to angiographic sytems
Table S4. Radiation exposure comparing left radial vs femoral
Table S5. Radiation exposure comparing right radial vs femoral
Figure S1 Operator Dosimeters
Figure S2 Detailed Dosimeters description
Figure S3. Patient and Operator Flow Chart
Figure S4. Stratified analysis for dose area product (DAP)
Figure S5. Correlation between dose area product and fluoroscopy time
Figure S6. Detailed operator radiation doses
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2
MATRIX Program Organization: list of investigators Study Sponsors: Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology (GISE) and EUSTRATEGY (co-sponsor). Study Director: Maria Salomone, M.D., Ph.D., (Clinical Research Director), T.F.S., Italy. Data Monitoring: T.F.S., Italy andthe Netherlands; F.L.S.-Research Support, Spain; Gothia Forum, Sweden. Data Management : EUSTRATEGY, Enrico Frigoli, M.D. (Project Leader), Italy; Pierpaolo Occhilupo; Veronica Lodolini; Monia Monti, B.Sc.; Maria Grazia Mazzone, Italy; Erika Delos, M.D.;Maria Teresa Caruso; Maggie Testa; Nestor Ciociano; Maurizio Lazzero; Davide Gazzotti; Lorenzo Cagliari; Leila Shahmohammadi; Martina Caiazza; Vittorio Virga; Elena Guerra, M.D.; Eva Michalska; Sara Castellini; Vincenzo Serino; Gabriella Visconti, M.D.; Gianluca Pendenza, M.D.; Monica Portolan; Marco Anzini, M.D.; Elisa Silvetti; Tiziana Coco; Francesco Costa, M.D.; Sara Ariotti, M.D.; Linda Valli; Marianna Adamo, M.D.; Marcello Marino, M.D. Clinical Event Committee: Pascal Vranckx, M.D., Ph.D. (Chair), Belgium; Sergio Leonardi, M.D., M.H.S. (Co-Chair), Italy; Pierluigi Tricoci, M.D., Ph.D., USA. Statistical Committee: Peter Jüni, M.D. (Chair), Martina Rothenbühler (trial statistician), Dik Heg, Switzerland Participating countries: Italy, Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. Executive Committee: Marco Valgimigli, M.D., Ph.D., (Principal Investigator [PI] and Chair), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Andrea Gagnor, M.D., Ospedale degli Infermi, Rivoli (TO), Italy; Paolo Calabrò, M.D., Ph.D., Ospedale dei Colli, Napoli, Italy; Paolo Rubartelli, M.D., Ospedale Villa Scassi, Genova, Italy; Stefano Garducci, M.D., A.O. Ospedale Civile di Vimercate (MB), Italy; Giuseppe Andò, M.D., A.O. Universitaria G. Martino, Messina, Italy; Andrea Santarelli, M.D., Ospedali degli Infermi, Rimini, Italy; Mario Galli, M.D., Azienda Ospedaliera Sant'Anna, Como, Italy; Roberto Garbo, San Giovanni Bosco Hospital, Torino, Italy; Ezio Bramucci, M.D., Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; Salvatore Ierna, M.D., Ospedale Sirai - Carbonia (CI), Italy; Carlo Briguori, M.D., Clinica Mediterranea, Napoli, Italy; Bernardo Cortese, M.D., Ospedale Fate bene Fratelli, Milano, Italy; Ugo Limbruno, M.D., Ospedale della Misericordia, Grosseto, Italy; Roberto Violini, M.D., A.O. San Camillo-Forlanini, Roma, Italy; Patrizia Presbitero, M.D., IRCCS Humanitas, Rozzano (MI), Italy; Nicoletta de Cesare, M.D., Policlinico San Marco, Zingonia (BG), Italy; Paolo Sganzerla, M.D., A.O. Treviglio (BG),Italy; Arturo Ausiello, M.D., Casa di Cura Villa Verde, Taranto, Italy; Paolo Tosi, M.D., Ospedale Mater Salutis di Legnago (VR), Italy; Gennaro Sardella, M.D., Ph.D., Policlinico Umberto I, Roma, Italy; Manel Sabate’, M.D., Ph.D. and Salvatore Brugaletta, M.D., Ph.D., University Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain. Steering Committee: Giovanni Saccone, M.D., A.O. Giovanni Paolo II, Sciacca (AG), Italy; Pietro Vandoni, M.D., A.O. Ospedale di Desio (MB), Italy; Antonio
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3
Zingarelli, M.D., A.O. Universitaria San Martino, Genova, Italy; Armando Liso, M.D., Città di Lecce Hospital (GVM), Lecce, Italy; Stefano Rigattieri, M.D., A.O. Sandro Pertini, Roma, Italy; Emilio Di Lorenzo, M.D., A.O. G. Moscati, Avellino, Italy; Carlo Vigna, M.D., IRCCS Ospedale Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy; Cataldo Palmieri, M.D., Ospedale Pasquinucci, Massa, Italy; Camillo Falcone, M.D., Ospedale Sacra Famiglia, Erba (CO), Italy; Raffaele De Caterina, M.D., Ph.D., Marcello Caputo, M.D., Ospedale Clinicizzato SS. Annunziata Chieti, Italy; Giovanni Esposito, M.D., Ph.D., Policlinico Federico II, Napoli, Italy; Alessandro Lupi, M.D., A.O.U Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy; Pietro Mazzarotto, M.D., Ospedale di Lodi, Italy; Fernando Varbella, M.D., Ospedale degli Infermi, Rivoli (TO), Italy; Tiziana Zaro, M.D., A.O. Ospedale Civile di Vimercate (MB), Italy; Marco Nazzaro, M.D., A.O. San Camillo-Forlanini, Roma, Italy; Sunil V. Rao, M.D., Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA, Arnoud WJ van‘t Hof, M.D., Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, Netherlands; Elmir Omerovic, M.D., Ph.D., Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. National Coordinating Investigators Paolo Calabrò, M.D., Ph.D., Ospedale dei Colli, Napoli, Italy Arnoud W J van‘t Hof, M.D., Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, Netherlands Manel Sabate’, M.D., Ph.D. and Salvatore Brugaletta, M.D., Ph.D., University Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain Elmir Omerovic, M.D., Ph.D., Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden Investigators and Clinical Sites: Gianluca Campo (PI), Marco Valgimigli (PI until October 20, 2013), Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; Lucia Uguccioni (PI), A.O. Ospedali Riuniti, Marche Nord, Pesaro, Italy; Corrado Tamburino (PI), A.O. Universitaria Ferrarotto, Catania, Italy; Patrizia Presbitero (PI), Dennis Zavalloni-Parenti, IRCCS Humanitas, Rozzano (MI), Italy; Fabio Ferrari, (PI), A.O. Universitaria San Luigi Gonzaga di Orbassano (TO), Italy; Roberto Ceravolo (PI), Azienda Ospedaliera Pugliese Ciaccio, Catanzaro, Italy; Andrea Santarelli (PI), Ospedali degli Infermi, Rimini, Italy; Fabio Tarantino (PI), Ospedale G. B. Morgagni, Forlì, Italy; Paolo Calabrò (PI), Ospedale dei Colli, Napoli, Italy; Giampaolo Pasquetto (PI), P.O. di Este (PD), Italy; Giovanni Esposito (PI), Policlinico Federico II, Napoli, Italy; Salvatore Ierna (PI), Ospedale Sirai - Carbonia (CI), Italy; Gavino Casu (PI), Stefano Mameli, Maria Letizia Stochino, Ospedale San Francesco, Nuoro, Italy; Nicoletta de Cesare (PI), Policlinico San Marco, Zingonia (BG), Italy; Pietro Mazzarotto, (PI), Ospedale di Lodi, Italy; Alberto Cremonesi (PI), Villa Maria Cecilia Hospital, Cotignola (RA), Italy; Francesco Saia (PI), Policlinico S. Orsola, Bologna, Italy; Giovanni Saccone (PI), Fabio abate, A.O. Giovanni Paolo II, Sciacca (AG), Italy; Ugo Limbruno (PI), Andrea Picchi, Ospedale della Misericordia, Grosseto, Italy; Roberto Violini (PI), Marco Nazzaro, A.O. San Camillo-Forlanini, Roma, Italy; Roberto Garbo (PI), Salvatore Colangelo, Giacomo Boccuzzi, San Giovanni Bosco Hospital, Torino, Italy; Paolo Tosi (PI), Ospedale Mater Salutis di Legnago (VR), Italy; Vincenzo Guiducci (PI), A.O. Santa Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy; Carlo Vigna (PI), IRCCS Ospedale Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy; Antonio Zingarelli (PI), A.O. Universitaria San Martino, Genova, Italy; Andrea Gagnor (PI), Ferdinando Varbella, Ospedale degli Infermi, Rivoli (TO), Italy; Stefano Garducci (PI), Tiziana Zaro, A.O. Ospedale Civile di Vimercate (MB), Italy; Simone Tresoldi (PI), Pietro Vandoni (PI until June 17, 2014), A.O. Ospedale di Desio (MB), Italy; Marco Contarini (PI), Ospedale Umberto I, Siracusa, Italy;
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4
Armando Liso (PI), Città di Lecce Hospital (GVM), Lecce, Italy; Antonio Dellavalle (PI), Ospedali Riuniti ASL 17, Savigliano (CN), Italy; Salvatore Curello (PI), A.O. Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy; Fabio Mangiacapra (PI) Campus Biomedico, Roma, Italy; Paolo Rubartelli (PI), Ospedale Villa Scassi, Genova, Italy; Rosario Evola (PI), P.O. San Vincenzo, Taormina (ME), Italy; Giuseppe Andò (PI), A.O. Universitaria G. Martino, Messina, Italy; Cataldo Palmieri (PI), Ospedale Pasquinucci, Massa, Italy; Camillo Falcone (PI), Ospedale Sacra Famiglia, Erba (CO), Italy; Francesco Liistro (PI), Ospedale San Donato, Arezzo, Italy; Manuela Creaco (PI), Ospedale Gravina, Caltagirone (CT), Italy; Antonio Colombo (PI), Alaide Chieffo, Ospedale San Raffaele IRCCS, Milano, Italy; Andrea Perkan (PI), A.O.U. Ospedali Riuniti di Trieste, Italy; Stefano De Servi, Ospedale Civile di Legnano, Italy; Dionigi Fischetti (PI), Ospedale Vito Fazzi , Lecce, Italy; Stefano Rigattieri (PI), Alessandro Sciahbasi, A.O. Sandro Pertini, Roma, Italy; Edoardo Pucci (PI), Ospedale Santa Maria Goretti, Latina, Italy; Enrico Romagnoli (PI), Policlinico Casilino, Roma, Italy; Claudio Moretti (PI), A.O.U. San Giovanni Battista, Torino, Italy; Luciano Moretti (PI), A.O. C. G. Mazzoni, Ascoli Piceno, Italy; Raffaele De Caterina (PI), Marcello Caputo (PI), Marco Zimmarino, Ospedale Clinicizzato SS. Annunziata Chieti, Italy;Paolo Sganzerla (PI), A.O. Treviglio (BG), Italy; Maurizio Ferrario (PI), Ezio Bramucci (PI until June 17, 2014), Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; Emilio Di Lorenzo (PI), A.O. G. Moscati, Avellino, Italy; Carlo Briguori, M.D., Clinica Mediterranea, Napoli, Italy; Maurizio Turturo (PI), Ospedale Di Venere, Bari, Italy; Roberto Bonmassari (PI), Ospedale Santa Chiara, Trento, Italy; Carlo Penzo (PI), Ospedale Civile di Mirano (VE), Italy; Bruno Loi (PI), A.O. Brotzu, Cagliari, Italy; Ciro Mauro (PI), AORN Cardarelli, Napoli, Italy; Arturo Ausiello, M.D., Casa di Cura Villa Verde, Taranto, Italy; Anna Sonia Petronio (PI), A.O. Universitaria Cisanello, Pisa, Italy; Gabriele Gabrielli (PI), Ospedali Riuniti Di Ancona, Italy; Gennaro Sardella, M.D., Ph.D., Policlinico Umberto I, Roma, Italy; Antonio Micari (PI), Villa Maria Eleonora Hospital, Palermo, Italy; Flavia Belloni (PI), Ospedale Santo Spirito in Saxia, Roma, Italy; Alessandro Lupi (PI), A.O.U. Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy; Francesco Amico (PI), Ospedale Sant’Elia, Caltanissetta, Italy; Marco Comeglio (PI), Ospedale del Ceppo, Pistoia, Italy; Claudio Fresco (PI), A.O.U. S. Maria della Misericordia, Udine, Italy; Arnoud WJ van‘t Hof, (PI), Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, Netherlands; Nicolas Van Mieghem (PI), Roberto Diletti, Evelyn Regar, Thoraxcenter, Erasus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Elmir Omerovic (PI) Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden; Salvatore Brugaletta (PI), Manel Sabaté, University Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain; Joan Antoni Gómez Hospital (PI), Hospital de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain; José Francisco Díaz Fernández (PI) Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain; Vicente Mainar (PI) Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, Spain; Jose Maria de la Torre Hernandez (PI), Hospital Marques de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain.
Funding The study sponsor, Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology (GISE), a nonprofit organization, received grant support for the conduct of the MATRIX program from The Medicines Company and TERUMO. Other than supplying financial support and bivalirudin, the funding companies were not involved with the study processes, including site selection and management, and data collection and analysis. No agreements exist regarding confidentiality of the data among the funding companies, the sponsor, and the investigators.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5
MATRIX Program Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Inclusion Criteria Inclusion criteria for non –ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome ALL THREE MUST BE PRESENT FOR ELIGIBILITY History consistent with new, or worsening ischemia, occurring at rest or with minimal
activity Enrolment within 7 days of the most recent symptoms Planned coronary angiography with indication to PCI AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA Aged 60 years or older Troponin T or I or creatine kinase MB above the upper limit of normal Electrocardiographic changes compatible with ischemia, i.e. ST depression of 1 mm or greater in two contiguous leads, T-wave inversion more than 3 mm, or any dynamic ST shifts Inclusion criteria for ST -segment elevation myocardial infarction BOTH CRITERIA MUST BE PRESENT FOR ELIGIBILITY Chest pain for more than 20 minutes with an electrocardiographic ST-segment elevation 1 mm or greater in two or more contiguous leads, or with a new left bundle-branch block or with ST-segment depression of 1 mm or greater in two or more of leads V1–3 with a positive terminal T wave Admission either within 12 hours of symptom onset or between 12 and 24 hours after onset with evidence of continuing ischemia or previous fibrinolytic treatment. Exclusion Criteria ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: Patients who cannot give informed consent or have a life expectancy of less than 30 days Allergy or intolerance to bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin Treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin within the past 6 hours Treatment with any glycoprotein inhibitor in the previous 3 days Absolute contraindications or allergy, that cannot be premedicated, to iodinated contrast or to any of the study medications, including both aspirin and clopidogrel Contraindications to angiography, including but not limited to severe peripheral vascular disease If it is known, a creatinine clearance less than 30 ml per minute or dialysis dependent Previous enrolment in this study PCI in the previous 30 days
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6
Additional Details on Statistical Analyses All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Differences
between randomization groups at patient level in the full MATRIX sample (for patient
radiation exposure) were assessed using Student’s t-test and χ2 or Fisher’s exact
test. In the RAD MATRIX subsample (for operator radiation exposure), differences
due to the randomized access site were estimated using mixed models accounting
for patients nested at the operator level. P-values for differences in the procedural
characteristics were estimated with mixed models accounting for procedures nested
at patient level in case of the full MATRIX sample and at patient and operator level in
case of the RAD MATRIX subsample. Medians at operator level (Table 2 and 3 in
the manuscript) in the RAD MATRIX subsample are compared using the Wilcoxon
rank sum unpaired test. The correlation between fluoroscopy time and DAP was
assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The non-inferiority test for the
primary outcome has been performed using a one-sided unpaired test with alpha of
5%. All hypotheses were two sided and p-value<0·05 was deemed statistically
significant. All analyses were performed using STATA release 14·1 and R 3·3·0.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7
Table S1. Clinical and procedural characteristics o f the MATRIX population and the RAD-MATRIX subsample
MATRIX
RAD-MATRIX
Radial
Femoral
P
Radial
Femoral
P
Patients (n)
3448
3454
373
393
Procedures (n) 3773 3797 379 398 Male Sex 2548 (74%) 2503 (73%) 0.180 288 (77%) 277 (71%) 0.035 Age (years) 66 ± 12 66 ± 12 0.239 66 ± 12 66 ± 12 0 .944 Height (cm) 169 ± 98 169 ± 8 0.457 170 ± 9 169 ± 8 0.162 Weight (Kg) 77 ± 14 77 ± 14 0.410 77 ± 14 77 ± 14 0 .782 Body mass index 27 ± 4 27 ± 4 0.825 27 ± 4 27 ± 4 0 .228 Smoking habitus* 1884 (55%) 1915 (55%) 0.503 223 (60%) 223 (57%) 0.274 Hypertension 2202 (64%) 2244 (65%) 0.338 239 (64%) 256 (65%) 0.760 Diabetes 802 (23%) 785 (23%) 0.599 90 (24%) 101 (26%) 0.616 Dyslipidemia 1529 (44%) 1615 (47%) 0.044 147 (40)
% 181 (46%) 0.063
PVD 293 (9%) 316 (9%) 0.340 42 (11%) 41 (10%) 0.964 Previous MI 485 (14%) 528 (15%) 0.152 56 (15%) 66 (17%) 0.494 Previous PCI 523 (15%) 492 (14%) 0.751 52 (14%) 64 (16%) 0.351 LV ejection fraction (%) 51 ± 10 51 ± 10 0.101 51 ± 10 51 ± 9 0.516 Diagnosis at admission STEMI 1620 (47%) 1624 (47%) 0.977 178 (48%) 176 (45%) 0.558 NSTEACS 1828 (53%) 1830 (53%) 0.977 195 (52%) 217 (55%) 0.558 SAP (mmHg) 139 ± 26 140 ± 26 0.157 144 ± 28 143 ± 2 7 0.612 Heart rate (min-1) 76 ± 17 76 ± 17 0.459 78 ± 20 76 ± 16 0.114 Staged Procedure 571 (17%) 585 (17%) 0.675 77 (21%) 74 (19%) 0.619
Results expressed as mean ± standard deviation or absolute number and percent in bracket. 652 patients underwent two procedures and eight patients underwent three procedures during index hospitalization *Previous or current. LV denotes left ventricular; MI, myocardial infarction; NSTEACS, non ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; PVD, peripheral vascular disease; SAP, systolic arterial pressure; STEMI, ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8
Table S2. Clinical and procedural characteristics o f RAD-MATRIX subsample for right or left radial access Left
radial access Right
radial access P
Operators 14 13 Patients 130 120 Procedures 131 121 Clinical characteristics Male Sex 107 (82%) 88 (73%) 0.089 Age (years) 67 ± 12 67 ± 12 0.864 Height (cm) 170 ± 9 169 ± 9 0.226 Weight (Kg) 77 ± 15 76 ± 13 0.446 Body mass index 27 ± 4 27 ± 4 0.943 Smoking habitus¶ 75 (58%) 76 (63%) 0.439 Hypertension 85 (65%) 79 (66%) 0.941 Diabetes 30 (23%) 28 (23%) 0.961 Dyslipidemia 57 (44%) 45 (38%) 0.308 PVD 12 (9%) 16 (13%) 0.297 Previous MI 26 (20%) 18 (15%) 0.301 Previous PCI 25 (19%) 13 (11%) 0.063 LV ejection fraction (%) 51 ± 9 51 ± 11 0.938 Diagnosis at admission STEMI 63 (49%) 49 (41%) 0.271 NSTEACS 67 (51%) 71 (59%) 0.271 SAP (mmHg) 147 ± 27 142 ± 29 0.147 Heart rate (min-1) 78 ± 20 78 ± 21 0.958 Staged Procedure 29 (22%) 20 (17%) 0.278 Procedural characteristics PCI attempted 112 (86%) 101 (84%) 0.682 Diagnostic catheters 1.1 ± 0.6 1.0 ± 0.8 0.307§ Guiding catheters 1.5 ± 0.6 1.6 ± 0.7 0.182 Cross over 3 (2%) 3 (3%) 0.701 Contrast dose (ml) 171 ± 86 179 ± 94 0.476 Fluoroscopy time (min)* 10 (5-16) 11 (7-16) 0.210 DAP (Gy*cm2)* 78.5 (40.5-142.8) 76.1 (34.1-130.7) 0.3951 PCI Completed 112 (86%) 101 (84%) 0.682 Treated artery Left main 3 (3%) 7 (7%) 0.156§ LAD 46 (41%) 54 (54%) 0.071 Left circumflex 31 (28%) 33 (33%) 0.411 Right coronary 47 (42%) 28 (28%) 0.031 Number of stents 1.6 ± 1 1.5 ± 0.9 0.675 Total stent length 75 ± 45 69 ± 44 0.394 Thromboaspiration 38 (34%) 28 (28%) 0.507
Results expressed as mean ± standard deviation or absolute number and percent in brackets. The p-values for clinical characteristics are estimated accounting for clusters at operator level, whereas the p-values of the procedural characteristics are estimated accounting for both operator and patient level. Two patients underwent two procedures. Four operators were excluded due two lack of left versus right randomization. One operator was randomized only to left radial access. DAP, dose area product; LAD, left anterior descending; LV, Left ventricular; MI, myocardial infarction; NSTEACS, non ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; PVD, peripheral vascular disease; SAP, systolic arterial pressure; STEMI, ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. *Median with interquartile range ¶Previous or current §p-value estimated accounting for cluster effect at operator level only.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
9
Table S3. Breakdown of angiographic systems accordi ng to vascular access Angiographic System Full Matrix population Rad Matrix sub-sample Procedures (N) Radial
3773 Femoral
3797 p Radial
379 Femoral
398 p
Siemens Artis 794 (21) 848 (22.3) 21 (5.5) 21 (5.3) Philips Integris 245 (6.5) 252 (6.6) 0 0 Philips Allura 1547 (41) 1525 (40.2) 174 (45.9) 182 (45.7) General ElectricsInnova 1021 (27.1) 1053 (27.7) 142 (37.5) 161 (40.5) Toshiba Infinix 166 (4.4) 119 (3.1) 42 (11.1) 34 (8.5) DAP (Gy*cm2) Siemens Artis 38.2 (15.7-88) 34.2 (14.1-78) 0.071 98.2 (63.8-190.1) 81.1 (37.9-130.5) 0.117 Philips Integris 79 (42.9-142.5) 68 (39.5-121.5) 0.097 No procedures No procedures Philips Allura 65.4 (30.2-125.4) 58 (25.3-107.5) 0.001 45 (22.2-100.9) 36.3 (12.6-88.6) 0.469 General Electrics Innova 80 (42.7-125.4) 74.3 (39.2-129) 0.278 97.5 (63.9-145.6) 89.7 (56.9-136.2) 0.517 Toshiba Infinix 50.7 (26.7-110.1) 62.9 (44-108.9) 0.152 70.7 (44.2-120.7) 67 (52.4-108.9) 0.840 Fluoroscopy time (min) Siemens Artis 9.1 (5.4-16) 9 (5-15) 0.017 7 (5-14) 8 (5-11) 0.495 Philips Integris 11 (6.9-16.2) 9.4 (6-14.9) 0.022 No procedures No procedures Philips Allura 10 (6-16.1) 8.4 (5-14.4) <0.001 10 (5-16) 6 (4-12) 0.003 General Electrics Innova 11.6 (7.1-16) 10.4 (6.5-16) 0.414 12 (7-17) 10 (7-16) 0.111 Toshiba Infinix 8 (4-14) 8 (5-13) 0.828 8.5 (5-13) 7 (4-10) 0.289
DAP: Dose area Product
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10
Table S4. Operator radiation exposure for left radi al and femoral access
Left Radial
access
Femoral access
Difference between
expected and actual sum of ranks for femoral access
P
Operators
14
14
Procedures 131 239 Median number of procedures 6.5 (4-10) 13 (9-17) -61.5 0.005 Thorax dose per procedure (µSv) 51.7 (33.2-91.9) 38.1 (23.4-77.6) 21 0.335 Wrist dose per procedure (µSv) 86.5 (52.6-139.8) 109.2 (44.2-128.7) 2 0.927 Eye dose per procedure (µSv) 14.8 (11-34.8) 18.8 (9.6-28.3) -1.0 0.713 Effective Dose (µSv) 1.6 (1.0-2.8) 1.2 (0.7-2.4) 21.0 0.335 Dose normalized by FT Thorax dose 4.1 (2.5-7.3) 3.4 (2.6-4.8) 14 0.520 Wrist dose 8.8 (4.6-11) 6.9 (4.0-11.9) -1.0 0.963 Eye dose 1.3 (0.6-2.9) 1.7 (0.8-2.2) -8.0 0.242 Dose normalized by DAP Thorax dose 0.6 (0.4-0.8) 0.5 (0.3-0.6) 29 0.182 Wrist dose 1.0 (0.6-1.2) 0.9 (0.6-1.3) 8.5 0.696 Eye dose 0.2 (0.1-0.5) 0.2 (0.1-0.4) 3.5 0.872
Results expressed as median with interquartile range DAP: Dose Area Product; FT: Fluoroscopy time
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11
Table S5. Operator radiation exposure for right rad ial and femoral access
Right Radial
access
Femoral access
Difference between
expected and actual sum of ranks for femoral access
P
Operators
14
14
Procedures 121 239 Median number of procedures 9 (2-14) 13 (9-17) -37 0.089 Thorax dose per procedure (µSv) 84.2 (47.1-146.1) 38.1 (23.4-77.6) 48 0.027 Wrist dose per procedure (µSv) 152.6 (89.4-214.6) 109.2 (44.2-128.7) 32 0.141 Eye dose per procedure (µSv) 38.6 (21.1-50) 18.8 (9.6-28.3) 31 0.154 Effective Dose (µSv) 2.6 (1.4-4.4) 1.2 (0.7-2.4) 48 0.027 Dose normalized by FT Thorax dose 7.1 (4-10.8) 3.4 (2.6-4.8) 51.5 0.018 Wrist dose 11.5 (6.4-15.4) 6.9 (4.0-11.9) 24 0.270 Eye dose 2.6 (1.3-3.9) 1.7 (0.8-2.2) 30 0.168 Dose normalized by DAP Thorax dose 0.7 (0.5-1.1) 0.5 (0.3-0.6) 50.5 0.020 Wrist dose 1.2 (0.9-2.3) 0.9 (0.6-1.3) 26.5 0.223 Eye dose 0.3 (0.2-0.5) 0.2 (0.1-0.4) 27 0.214
Results expressed as median with interquartile range DAP: Dose Area Product; FT: Fluoroscopy time
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12
Figure S1 Operator Dosimeters
Panel A provides an overview of the 9 dosimeters, supplied to participating operators in the RAD-MATRIX. They were supplied in three separate envelopes containing each a set of three dosimeters (envelopes labelled “femoral access site”, “left radial access site”, “right radial access site”). Panel B shows how an operator participating into the RAD MATRIX wearing a set of 3 dosimeters (one placed at the thorax, one at the head and one at the left wrist). The locations of the dosimeters were the same for the three randomized access sites compared (femoral, right radial, left radial).
Panel A:
Panel B:
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
13
Figure S2. Detailed Dosimeters description
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14
Figure S3. Patient and Operator Flow Chart In the left panel, patients with their procedures analyzed in the MATRIX trial, for the patient radiation exposure (DAP). In the right panel, operators with their patients and procedures analyzed for the operator radiation exposure sub-study (RAD-MATRIX). DAP denotes dose area product.
* Thirteen operators received at least once a left radial and at least once a right radial randomization, one operator received two times left radial randomization and zero times right radial randomization, so effective sample size is n=14 operators left radial access and n=13 operators right radial access
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
15
Figure S4. Stratified analysis for dose area produc t (DAP) Mean difference of DAP values between radial and femoral access according to specified subgroups
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16
Figure S5. Correlation between dose area product an d fluoroscopy time. Red circles: patients randomized to the femoral group. Grey circles: patients randomized to the radial group.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
17
Figure S6. Detailed operator radiation doses.
Each line represents an operator with red and grey bar showing cumulative radiation
exposure in micro Sievert with femoral or radial access, respectively.