Coronary Artery Bypass: Review of Surgical Techniques and Impact on Long-Term Revascularization Outcomes.

Coronary revascularization for multivessel disease remains a common and costly source of hospitalizations in the United States. Surgical techniques influence outcomes for coronary bypass and also affect the need for percutaneous coronary intervention in the future. As more radial access has been used for coronary angiography, consideration for use of the radial artery as a surgical conduit remains unclear. Saphenous vein grafts are commonly used for coronary bypass, however long-term patency remains suboptimal, and is also associated with a higher risk of adverse events with percutaneous coronary intervention. Thus, understanding the interplay between coronary bypass techniques and percutaneous coronary intervention has become increasingly important.

The Procedure Coordinator: A Resident-Driven Initiative to Increase Opportunity for Inpatient Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Training residents to become competent in common bedside procedures can be challenging. Some hospitals have attending physician-led procedure teams with oversight of all procedures to improve procedural training, but these teams require significant resources to establish and maintain. OBJECTIVE: We sought to improve resident procedural training by implementing a resident-run procedure team without routine attending involvement. METHODS: We created the role of a resident procedure coordinator (RPC). Interested residents on less time-intensive rotations voluntarily served as RPC. Medical providers in the hospital contacted the RPC through a designated pager when a bedside procedure was needed. A structured credentialing process, using direct observation and a procedure-specific checklist, was developed to determine residents' competence for completing procedures independently. Checklists were developed by the residency program and approved by institutional subspecialists. The service was implemented in June 2016 at an 850-bed academic medical center with 70 internal medicine and 32 medicine-pediatrics residents. The procedure service functioned without routine attending involvement. The impact was evaluated through resident procedure logs and surveys of residents and attending physicians. RESULTS: Compared with preimplementation procedure logs, there were substantial increases postimplementation in resident-performed procedures and the number of residents credentialed in paracenteses, thoracenteses, and lumbar punctures. Fifty-nine of 102 (58%) residents responded to the survey, with 42 (71%) reporting the initiative increased their ability to obtain procedural experience. Thirty-one of 36 (86%) attending respondents reported preferentially using the service. CONCLUSIONS: The RPC model increased resident procedural training opportunities using a structured sign-off process and an operationalized service.