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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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