Experience and perspective with intravascular imaging and invasive coronary physiology: Insights from allied health professionals.
cardiac catheterization laboratory
coronary physiology
intracoronary imaging
intravascular imaging
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Sep 2024
02 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
02
07
2024
received:
02
06
2024
accepted:
22
07
2024
medline:
2
9
2024
pubmed:
2
9
2024
entrez:
2
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Although intravascular imaging (IVI) and invasive coronary physiology (ICP) are utilized in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with robust positive clinical evidence, their adoption in cardiac catheterization laboratories (CCLs) is still limited. The aim of our survey was to assess the perspectives on the experiences of allied health professionals in CCLs' utility of IVI and ICP. An anonymous online survey was conducted through multiple channels, including the Cardiovascular Research Technologies (CRT) 2023 Nurses and Technologists Symposium, social media, Cath Lab Digest link, and field requests, leading to diverse representation of allied health professionals. A total of 101 CCL members participated in the survey. First, 59% of responders noted an increased use of IVI in their institutions over recent years. For those experiencing an increase, 49% credited training, 45% emerging evidence, and 34% attributed new CCL members. Barriers to IVI usage were perceived increased procedure time (58%), staff resistance (56%), procedural cost (48%), and difficulty interpreting findings (44%). Regarding ICP, 61% reported using it in approximately 25% to 75% of cases, while 10% utilized it in 75% to 100% of CCL procedures. Interpreting ICP results was mixed, with 56% confident in interpreting all ICP results and 6% unable to interpret any ICP results. Our findings highlight opportunities for increasing routine utilization of IVI and ICP in the CCL through allied health professionals. By providing education and training, we can elevate familiarity with the equipment and subsequently build a CCL culture that advocates for both IVI and ICP.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although intravascular imaging (IVI) and invasive coronary physiology (ICP) are utilized in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with robust positive clinical evidence, their adoption in cardiac catheterization laboratories (CCLs) is still limited.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
The aim of our survey was to assess the perspectives on the experiences of allied health professionals in CCLs' utility of IVI and ICP.
METHODS
METHODS
An anonymous online survey was conducted through multiple channels, including the Cardiovascular Research Technologies (CRT) 2023 Nurses and Technologists Symposium, social media, Cath Lab Digest link, and field requests, leading to diverse representation of allied health professionals.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 101 CCL members participated in the survey. First, 59% of responders noted an increased use of IVI in their institutions over recent years. For those experiencing an increase, 49% credited training, 45% emerging evidence, and 34% attributed new CCL members. Barriers to IVI usage were perceived increased procedure time (58%), staff resistance (56%), procedural cost (48%), and difficulty interpreting findings (44%). Regarding ICP, 61% reported using it in approximately 25% to 75% of cases, while 10% utilized it in 75% to 100% of CCL procedures. Interpreting ICP results was mixed, with 56% confident in interpreting all ICP results and 6% unable to interpret any ICP results.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings highlight opportunities for increasing routine utilization of IVI and ICP in the CCL through allied health professionals. By providing education and training, we can elevate familiarity with the equipment and subsequently build a CCL culture that advocates for both IVI and ICP.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Bech GJW, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2001;103:2928‐2934.
Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213‐224.
De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve‐guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1208‐1217.
Zhang J, Gao X, Kan J, et al. Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography‐guided drug‐eluting stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:3126‐3137.
Neumann FJ, Sousa‐Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:87‐165.
Lawton JS, Tamis‐Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145:e18‐e114.
Malik AO, Saxon JT, Spertus JA, et al. Hospital‐level variability in use of intracoronary imaging for percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2023;2:100973.
Zaman M, Stevens C, Ludman P, et al. Intracoronary imaging in PCI for acute coronary syndrome: insights from British cardiovascular intervention society registry. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2023;56:50‐56.
Smilowitz NR, Mohananey D, Razzouk L, Weisz G, Slater JN. Impact and trends of intravascular imaging in diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in inpatients in the United States. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;92:E410‐e415.
Parikh RV, Liu G, Plomondon ME, et al. Utilization and outcomes of measuring fractional flow reserve in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:409‐419.
Desai NR, Bradley SM, Parzynski CS, et al. Appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization and trends in utilization, patient selection, and appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2015;314:2045‐2053.
Naranjo D, Doll J, Maynard C, Beaver K, Bansal A, Helfrich CD. Practice pattern variation in adoption of new and evolving percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. J Interv Cardiol. 2023;2023:2488045.
Manja V, Guyatt G, You J, Monteiro S, Jack S. Qualitative study of cardiologists' perceptions of factors influencing clinical practice decisions. Heart. 2019;105:749‐754.
Bangalore S, Barsness GW, Dangas GD, et al. Evidence‐based practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a scientific statement from the American heart association. Circulation. 2021;144:e107‐e119.
Lima Rocha P, Duarte Oliveira M, Matos Baptista F, Patrício LM. Efficiency in the cath lab: pursuing value‐based improvements following a sociotechnical approach. Rev Port Cardiol. 2022;41:665‐676.
Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Oetgen WJ, et al. CathKIT: improving quality in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:893‐899.
Gilmartin HM, Hess E, Mueller C, et al. Learning environments, reliability enhancing work practices, employee engagement, and safety climate in VA cardiac catheterization laboratories. Health Serv Res. 2022;57:385‐391.
Clarke N. Workplace learning environment and its relationship with learning outcomes in healthcare organizations. Hum Resour Dev Int. 2005;8:185‐205.
Simsek B, Kostantinis S, Karacsonyi J, et al. Educational experience of interventional cardiology fellows in the United States and Canada. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:247‐257.
Parviz Y, Shlofmitz E, Fall KN, et al. Utility of intracoronary imaging in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: comprehensive evaluation with intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography. Br Med Bull. 2018;125:79‐90.
Jeremias A, Kirtane AJ, Stone GW. A test in context. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2748‐2758.
Koskinas KC, Nakamura M, Räber L, et al. Current use of intracoronary imaging in interventional practice—results of a european association of percutaneous cardiovascular interventions (EAPCI) and Japanese association of cardiovascular interventions and therapeutics (CVIT) clinical practice survey. EuroIntervention. 2018;14:475.
Flattery E, Rahim HM, Petrossian G, et al. Competency‐based assessment of interventional cardiology fellows' abilities in intracoronary physiology and imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:e008760.
Bass TA, Abbott JD, Mahmud E, et al. 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology (Coronary, Peripheral Vascular, and Structural Heart Interventions): a report of the ACC competency management committee. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:e000088.
Naidu SS, Abbott JD, Bagai J, et al. SCAI expert consensus update on best practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: this statement was endorsed by the American college of cardiology (ACC), the American heart association (AHA), and the heart rhythm society (HRS) in April 2021. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98:255‐276.