English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Background  The adoption of the transradial ( TR ) approach over the traditional transfemoral ( TF ) approach has been hampered by concerns of increased radiation exposure—a subject of considerable debate within the field. We performed a patient‐level, multi‐center analysis to definitively address the impact of  TR  access on radiation exposure.    Methods and Results  Overall, 10 centers were included from 6 countries—Canada (2 centers), United Kingdom (2), Germany (2), Sweden (2), Hungary (1), and The Netherlands (1). We compared the radiation exposure of  TR  versus  TF  access using measured dose‐area product ( DAP ). To account for local variations in equipment and exposure, standardized  TR : TF DAP  ratios were constructed per center with procedures separated by coronary angiography ( CA ) and percutaneous coronary intervention ( PCI ). Among 57 326 procedures, we demonstrated increased radiation exposure with the  TR  versus  TF  approach, particularly in the  CA  cohort across all centers (weighted‐average ratios:  CA , 1.15;  PCI , 1.05). However, this was mitigated by increasing  TR  experience in the  PCI  cohort across all centers ( r =−0.8;  P =0.005). Over time, as a center transitioned to increasing  TR  experience ( r =0.9;  P =0.001), a concomitant decrease in radiation exposure occurred ( r =−0.8;  P =0.006). Ultimately, when a center's balance of  TR  to  TF  procedures approaches 50%, the resultant radiation exposure was equivalent.    Conclusions  The  TR  approach is associated with a modest increase in patient radiation exposure. However, this increase is eliminated when the  TR  and  TF  approaches are used with equal frequency—a guiding principle for centers adopting the  TR  approach.

journal of the american heart association

Impact of Center Experience on Patient Radiation Exposure During Transradial Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Intervention: A Patient‐Level, International, Collaborative, Multi‐Center Analysis