Experience and perspective with intravascular imaging and invasive coronary physiology: Insights from allied health professionals
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 The aim of our survey was to as...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2024-10, Vol.104 (4), p.733-742 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | 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
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
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
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
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. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1522-1946 1522-726X 1522-726X |
DOI: | 10.1002/ccd.31175 |