Training the next generation of invasive cardiologists: Feasibility of implementing a trans-radial access program at an academic hospital

BACKGROUND

Slow adoption of trans-radial access (TRA) for left heart catheterization (LHC) in the U.S. may be related to concerns about procedural complexity and a steep learning curve. However, TRA acceptance among novice operators remains poorly characterized.

METHODS

We initiated a 1-year TRA learning period among lower-risk outpatients, followed by a "radial-first" policy for all LHC patients beginning year 2. By year 3, all fellows prospectively collected diagnostic LHC data as part of a quality improvement study. TRA procedural characteristics were compared with patients undergoing trans-femoral access for the 3months prior to the TRA program, and trends over time were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between 7/2009 and 6/2012, we identified 960 patients undergoing LHC via TRA by 23 rotating cardiology fellows supervised by 5 interventional cardiologists. When evaluated against the 160 trans-femoral comparator patients, TRA patients had lower procedural success through the initial access site (88% vs. 99%, p<0.001) and longer fluoroscopy times (9.5 [5.8-15.9] vs. 6.5 [3.1-12.7] min, p<0.001), with similar contrast volumes and fewer catheters used. Despite tackling more complex patients during years 2-3, there were improvements in fluoroscopy times, catheter utilization, contrast volumes, and procedural success rates over time (all p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The dedicated adoption of TRA by an academic catheterization laboratory demonstrated improvements in efficiency and resource utilization over a relatively short period of time. Additional exposure to TRA during training may help facilitate acceptance of this approach among the next generation of invasive cardiologists.

SHORT SUMMARY (FOR ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS)

When initiating a trans-radial access program for cardiac catheterization at an academic training hospital, procedural success rates were lower and fluoroscopy times were higher than traditional trans-femoral access. Nonetheless, other procedural variables were similar between the 2 approaches, and improvements over time were consistent with the learning curves reported among experienced cardiologists in prior studies. Exposure to trans-radial access during training may help facilitate acceptance of this approach among the next generation of invasive cardiologists.