scholarly journals Transradial versus transfemoral access for cardiac catheterization: a nationwide pilot study of training preferences and expertise in The United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Khalid Changal ◽  
Mubbasher Ameer Syed ◽  
Ealla Atari ◽  
Salik Nazir ◽  
Sameer Saleem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Interventional Cardiology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Femoral Access ◽  
Cardiovascular Training ◽  
Teaching Faculty ◽  
Level Of Training ◽  
Training Preferences ◽  
Detailed Questionnaire

Abstract Background The objective was to assess current training preferences, expertise, and comfort with transfemoral access (TFA) and transradial access (TRA) amongst cardiovascular training fellows and teaching faculty in the United States. As TRA continues to dominate the field of interventional cardiology, there is a concern that trainees may become less proficient with the femoral approach. Methods A detailed questionnaire was sent out to academic General Cardiovascular and Interventional Cardiology training programs in the United States. Responses were sought from fellows-in-training and faculty regarding preferences and practice of TFA and TRA. Answers were analyzed for significant differences between trainees and trainers. Results A total of 125 respondents (75 fellows-in-training and 50 faculty) completed and returned the survey. The average grade of comfort for TFA, on a scale of 0 to 10 (10 being most comfortable), was reported to be 6 by fellows-in-training and 10 by teaching faculty (p < 0.001). TRA was the first preference in 95% of the fellows-in-training compared to 69% of teaching faculty (p 0.001). While 62% of fellows believed that they would receive the same level of training as their trainers by the time they graduate, only 35% of their trainers believed so (p 0.004). Conclusion The shift from TFA to radial first has resulted in significant concern among cardiovascular fellows-in training and the faculty regarding training in TFA. Cardiovascular training programs must be cognizant of this issue and should devise methods to assure optimal training of fellows in gaining TFA and managing femoral access-related complications.

scholarly journals Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Cardiac Catheterization: A Nationwide Pilot Study of Training Preferences and Expertise in USA.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khalid Hamid Changal ◽  
Mubbasher Ameer Syed ◽  
Ealla Atari ◽  
Salik Nazir ◽  
Sameer Saleem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Interventional Cardiology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Femoral Access ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Cardiovascular Training ◽  
Teaching Faculty ◽  
Level Of Training ◽  
Training Preferences

Abstract Background: The objective was to assess current training preferences, expertise, and comfort with transfemoral access (TFA) and transradial access (TRA) amongst cardiovascular training fellows and teaching faculty in United States. As TRA continues to dominate the field of interventional cardiology, there is a concern that trainees may become less proficient with the femoral approach. Methods: A detailed questionnaire was sent out to academic General Cardiovascular and Interventional Cardiology training programs in the United states. Responses were sought from fellows-in-training and faculty regarding preferences and practice of TFA and TRA. Answers were analyzed for significant differences between trainees and trainers using the Pearson χ2 or Fisher’s exact test, or the Student t test or the Mann–Whitney U test. Results: A total of 125 respondents (75 fellows-in-traing and 50 faculty) completed and returned the survey. The average grade of comfort for TFA, on a scale of 0 to 10 (10 being most comfortable), was reported to be 6 by fellows-in-training and 10 by teaching faculty (p < 0.001). TRA was the first preference in 95% of the fellows-in-training compared to 69% of teaching faculty (p 0.001). While 62% of fellows believed that they would receive the same level of training as their trainers by the time they graduate, only 35% of their trainers believed so (p 0.004).Conclusion: The shift from TFA to radial first has resulted in significant concern among cardiovascular fellows-in training and the faculty regarding training in TFA. Cardiovascular training programs must be cognizant of this issue and should devise methods to assure optimal training of fellows in gaining TFA and managing femoral access-related complications.

scholarly journals Neuro-ophthalmology Training in Ophthalmology Residency Programs in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. e12-e15
Author(s):  
Laura Wayman ◽  
John Chen ◽  
Jacqueline Leavitt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Residency Training ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Large Variability ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
The Status ◽  
Level Of Training

Background The status of neuro-ophthalmology education in ophthalmology residency training in the United States is unknown. There are numerous articles in the literature detailing resident outcomes for surgical procedures; however, there are no articles detailing teaching of a nonprocedural specialty. There are no specific Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements for neuro-ophthalmology training within ophthalmology residency. Each program determines the amount of neuro-ophthalmology training and level of training within ophthalmology residency. There are no publications that detail the extent of neuro-ophthalmology training during ophthalmology residency. Objective To determine the status of neuro-ophthalmology education in ophthalmology residency training programs in the United States. Methods A survey was sent in 2014 to residency directors and neuro-ophthalmologists of all ophthalmology residency programs who participated in the Ophthalmology Residency Matching Program in the United States to determine the amount of neuro-ophthalmology training that residents receive. Results From a total of 113 ophthalmology residency programs in the United States utilizing the Ophthalmology Residency Matching Program, 104 surveys were returned (92% response rate). Duration of neuro-ophthalmology training ranged from 1 to 112 days, with an average of 34.5 days. Most rotations occurred within postgraduate year 2 or 3. Conclusion This is the first evaluation of the amount of neuro-ophthalmology training within ophthalmology residencies participating in the matching program in the United States, which demonstrates large variability among the different programs. Future studies could ascertain if there is a correlation between resident satisfaction in neuro-ophthalmology training and the amount of training.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document