Purpose: The impact of cardiology fellows (CFs) and interventional cardiology fellows (ICFs) on patient radiation and contrast exposure during diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown.
Methods: Between 2011 and 2014, 16,175 cases were retrospectively assessed
involving 27 CFs, 22 ICFs and 24 staff as primary operators.
Results: During diagnostic coronary angiography, ICFs administered the lowest radiation dose (5,648±5,523 cGy*cm2; 1.30 ± 1.27 mSv)—achieving 22% less radiation than the staff (6,889±4,294 cGy*cm2; 1.58 ± 0.99 mSv) and 36% less than CFs (7,700±6,751 cGy*cm2; 1.77 ± 1.55 mSv) (p<0.01). When adjusted for access site, CFs administered more radiation than either the ICFs or staff. However, differences between ICFs and staff were exclusively observed during transradial procedures (p<0.01). With regards to contrast administration, ICFs administered less contrast (126.3 ± 57.6 mL) than either CFs (130±52.4 mL) or staff (132.7±47.6 mL) (p<0.01)—again, a finding isolated to the transradial cohort. Of the 6,751 percutaneous coronary intervention cases, no significant differences existed between the ICFs or staff cardiologists in patient radiation exposure—but a CF as the primary operator resulted in an 18% increase in radiation exposure. Notably, contrast use was not different amongst the types of operators (p<0.05).
Conclusion: In conclusion, having a cardiology fellow as primary operator during invasive cardiac procedures increases patient radiation exposure and minimally increases contrast administration. Strategies to minimize patient radiation exposure while maintaining trainee involvement should be evaluated.
Intravascular Ultrasound Imaging–Guided Versus Coronary Angiography–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
