The Learning Curve for Transradial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Operators in the United States
Open Access
- 3 June 2014
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Circulation
- Vol. 129 (22), 2277-2286
- https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.113.006356
Abstract
Background— Adoption of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TRI) in the United States is low and may be related to challenges learning the technique. We examined the relationships between operator TRI volume and procedural metrics and outcomes. Methods and Results— We used CathPCI Registry data from July 2009 to December 2012 to identify new radial operators, defined by an exclusively femoral percutaneous coronary intervention approach for 6 months after their first percutaneous coronary intervention in the database and ≥15 total TRIs thereafter. Primary outcomes of fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, and procedure success were chosen as markers of technical proficiency. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, bleeding, and vascular complications. Adjusted outcomes were analyzed by using operator TRI experience as a continuous variable with generalized linear mixed models. Among 54 561 TRI procedures performed at 704 sites, 942 operators performed 1 to 10 procedures, 942 operators performed 11 to 50 procedures, 375 operators performed 51 to 100 procedures, and 148 operators performed 101 to 200 procedures. As radial caseload increased, more TRIs were performed in women, in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and for emergency indications. Decreased fluoroscopy time and contrast use were nonlinearly associated with greater operator TRI experience, with faster reductions observed for newer (30–50 cases) operators. Procedure success was high, whereas mortality, bleeding, and vascular complications remained low across TRI volumes. Conclusions— As operator TRI volume increases, higher-risk patients are chosen for TRI. Despite this, operator proficiency improves with greater TRI experience, and safety is maintained. The threshold to overcome the learning curve appears to be approximately 30 to 50 cases.This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Adoption of Radial Access and Comparison of Outcomes to Femoral Access in Percutaneous Coronary InterventionCirculation, 2013
- Risk‐Treatment Paradox in the Selection of Transradial Access for Percutaneous Coronary InterventionJournal of the American Heart Association, 2013
- Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trialThe Lancet, 2011
- Mechanism and Predictors of Failed Transradial Approach for Percutaneous Coronary InterventionsJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2009
- Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trialsAmerican Heart Journal, 2009
- Trends in the Prevalence and Outcomes of Radial and Femoral Approaches to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report From the National Cardiovascular Data RegistryJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2008
- Association of the arterial access site at angioplasty with transfusion and mortality: the M.O.R.T.A.L study (Mortality benefit Of Reduced Transfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention via the Arm or Leg)Heart, 2008
- Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures: Systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trialsJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2004
- Coronary angiography through the radial or the femoral approach: The CARAFE studyCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 2001
- Brachial, radial, or femoral approach for elective Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation: A randomized comparisonCatheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis, 1997