Literature DB >> 21813402

Characterization of operator learning curve for transradial coronary interventions.

Warren T Ball1, Waseem Sharieff, Sanjit S Jolly, Tony Hong, Michael J B Kutryk, John J Graham, Neil P Fam, Robert J Chisholm, Asim N Cheema.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TR-PCI) improves clinical outcomes compared to the transfemoral (TF) approach. However, inadequate training and experience has limited widespread adoption by interventional cardiologists. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Clinical and procedural characteristics for TR-PCI were prospectively collected from 1999 to 2008. To identify minimum case volume for optimum clinical benefit, single-vessel TR-PCI cases were chronologically ranked and stratified into 1 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 150 and 151 to 300 case volume groups for operators starting the TR approach at the study institution. Cases by operators with a >300 TR-PCI case volume comprised the control group. TR-PCI failure rates, contrast use, guide usage, and fluoroscopy time were compared among groups. A total of 1672 patients underwent TR-PCI by 28 operators. TR-PCI failure occurred in 4% and was higher in the 1 to 50 case volume group compared to the 51 to 100 (P=0.007) and control (P=0.01) groups. Contrast use was greater in the 1 to 50 group (180±79 mL) compared to the 151 to 300 (157±75 mL, P=0.02) and control (168±79 mL, P=0.05) groups. Fluoroscopy time was higher in the 1 to 50 group (15±10 minutes) compared to the 101 to 150 (13±10 minutes, P=0.04) and control (12±9 minutes, P=0.02) groups. Reasons for TR-PCI failure included spasm (38%), subclavian tortuousity (16%), poor guide support (16%), failed access (10%), and radial loop (7%). Case volume was significantly correlated with TR-PCI failure (β=-0.0076, P=0.0028), and odds of failure was reduced by 32% for each 50 increments in case volume.
CONCLUSIONS: TR-PCI success depends on operator experience, and a case volume of ≥50 cases is required to achieve outcomes comparable to experienced operators. These findings have implications both for PCI operators looking to expand their skills and for defining standards for training.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21813402     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.110.960864

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1941-7640            Impact factor:   6.546


  34 in total

1.  The learning curve for transradial percutaneous coronary intervention among operators in the United States: a study from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

Authors:  Connie N Hess; Eric D Peterson; Megan L Neely; David Dai; William B Hillegass; Mitchell W Krucoff; Michael A Kutcher; John C Messenger; Samir Pancholy; Robert N Piana; Sunil V Rao
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 2.  How to tackle complications in radial procedures: Tip and tricks.

Authors:  Sanjay Kumar Chugh; Yashasvi Chugh; Sunita Chugh
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2015-06-16

3.  Nonparametric Bayesian Instrumental Variable Analysis: Evaluating Heterogeneous Effects of Coronary Arterial Access Site Strategies.

Authors:  Samrachana Adhikari; Sherri Rose; Sharon-Lise Normand
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 5.033

Review 4.  Vascular access and closure in coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention.

Authors:  Robert A Byrne; Salvatore Cassese; Maryam Linhardt; Adnan Kastrati
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 32.419

5.  Interventional cardiology: Transformation to transradial--safe and effective.

Authors:  Ian C Gilchrist
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 32.419

6.  Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention safety before and during the establishment of a transradial program at a teaching hospital.

Authors:  Robert A Leonardi; Jacob C Townsend; D Dirk Bonnema; Chetan A Patel; Michael T Gibbons; Thomas M Todoran; Christopher D Nielsen; Eric R Powers; Daniel H Steinberg
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2012-01-14       Impact factor: 2.778

7.  Evaluation of radiological risk during coronary angioplasty procedures: comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches.

Authors:  Piotr Iwachow; Izabela Miechowicz; Piotr Kałmucki; Beata Dziki; Andrzej Szyszka; Artur Baszko; Tomasz Siminiak
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 2.357

8.  Risk factors of failed transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions in Chaoshan Chinese: a locally retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Jing Hu; Xiangna Cai; Xin Wang; Lan Chen; Duanmin Xu; Jilin Li
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-07-15

9.  Radiation exposure during coronary angiography via transradial or transfemoral approaches when performed by experienced operators.

Authors:  Binita Shah; Sripal Bangalore; Frederick Feit; Gregory Fernandez; John Coppola; Michael J Attubato; James Slater
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.749

10.  TransRadial Education and Therapeutics (TREAT): shifting the balance of safety and efficacy of antithrombotic agents in percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium.

Authors:  Connie N Hess; Sunil V Rao; David F Kong; Julie M Miller; Kevin J Anstrom; Olivier F Bertrand; Jean-Philippe Collet; Mark B Effron; Benjamin C Eloff; Emmanuel O Fadiran; Andrew Farb; Ian C Gilchrist; David R Holmes; Alice K Jacobs; Prashant Kaul; L Kristin Newby; David R Rutledge; Dale R Tavris; Thomas T Tsai; Roseann M White; Eric D Peterson; Mitchell W Krucoff
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.749

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.