The role of a simulator-based course in coronary angiography on performance in real life cath lab.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore if a course consisting of lectures combined with simulator training in coronary angiography (CA) could accelerate the early learning curve when performing CA on patients.Knowledge in performing CA is included in the curriculum for the general cardiologist. The method, according to American College of Cardiology and European Society of Cardiology guidelines, for this training is not well defined but simulator training is proposed to be an option. However, the transfer effect from a CA simulator to performance in real world cath lab is not validated. METHODS: Fifty-four residents without practical skills in CA completed the course and 12 continued to training in invasive cardiology. These residents were tracked in the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry and compared to a control group of 46 novel operators for evaluation of performance metrics. A total of 4472 CAs were analyzed. RESULTS: Course participants demonstrated no consistent acceleration in the early learning curve in real world cath lab. They had longer fluoroscopy time compared to controls (median 360 seconds (IQR 245-557) vs. 289 seconds (IQR 179-468), p < 0.001). Safety measures also indicated more complications appearing at the ward, in particular when using the femoral approach (6.25% vs. 2.53%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Since the results of this retrospective non-randomized study were negative, the role of a structured course including simulator training for skills acquisition in CA is still uncertain. Randomized transfer studies are warranted to justify further use of simulators for training in CA.

The use of fluoroscopy to construct learning curves for coronary angiography.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess learning curves for coronary angiography using registry data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). BACKGROUND: ACC and ESC guidelines for cardiologists in training recommend 200-300 coronary angiographies as primary operator. Whether this is safe or sufficient to reach an adequate proficiency level is not known. The development of learning curves and factors that can determine progress is not yet clearly stated. METHODS: We extracted data from SCAAR 2005-2009 and identified 20 novel and 21 expert operators in coronary angiography during this observation period. Metrics possibly influenced by proficiency level were compared between the two groups. Learning curves were then identified with the expert's performance as reference defined as interquartile range (IQR). RESULTS: Data from a total of 24,000 coronary angiographies were examined. Beginners used similar volumes of contrast but had longer fluoroscopy time compared with experts. Fluoroscopy time appeared to be a metric that demonstrated a clear learning curve and beginners reached experts IQR in 50 % (median) of the procedures after ∼140 coronary angiographies. The risk of complications was independently associated with fluoroscopy time. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopy time seems to be the best metric to determine coronary angiography performance level and might therefore be a good proficiency measure during training. On the basis of our results we recommend the trainee to perform at least 150 coronary angiographies during supervision before proceeding with unsupervised procedures. It is not clear if the suggested number of procedures will result in decreased number of complications but the data suggests that fluoroscopy time might be a surrogate marker for complications.