Advanced catheter technology: is this the answer to overcoming the long learning curve in complex endovascular procedures.

INTRODUCTION Advanced endovascular procedures require a high degree of skill with a long learning curve. We aimed to identify differential increases in endovascular skill acquisition in novices using conventional (CC), manually steerable (MSC) and robotic endovascular catheters (RC). MATERIALS/METHODS 10 novices cannulated all vessels within a CT-reconstructed pulsatile-flow arch phantom in the Simulated Endovascular Suite. Subjects were randomly assigned to conventional/manually-steerable/robotic techniques as the first procedure undertaken. The operators repeated the task weekly for 5 weeks. Quantitative (cannulation times, wire/catheter-tip movements, vessel wall hits) and qualitative metrics (validated rating scale (IC3ST)) were compared. RESULTS Subjects exhibited statistically significant differences when comparing initial to final performance for total procedure times and catheter-tip movements with all catheter types. Sequential non-parametric comparisons identified learning curve plateau levels at weeks 2 or 3(RCs, MSCs), and at week 4(CCs) for the majority of metrics. There were significantly fewer catheter-tip movements using advanced catheter technology after training (Week 5: CC 74 IQR(59-89) versus MSC 62(44-81); p = 0.028, and RC 33 (28-44); p = 0.012). RCs virtually eliminated wall hits at the arch (CC 29(28-76) versus RC 8(6-9); p = 0.005) and produced significantly higher overall performance scores (p < 0.02). CONCLUSION Advanced endovascular catheters, although more intricate, do not seem to take longer to master and in some areas offer clear advantages with regards to positional control, at a faster rate. RCs seem to be the most intuitive and advanced skill acquisition occurs with minimal training. Robotic endovascular technology may have a significantly shorter path to proficiency allowing an increased number of trainees to attempt more complex endovascular procedures earlier and with a greater degree of safety.

[1]  Nicholas S. Peters,et al.  Experience of robotic catheter ablation in humans using a novel remotely steerable catheter sheath , 2008, Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology.

[2]  A. Healey,et al.  Physical and cognitive task analysis in interventional radiology. , 2006, Clinical radiology.

[3]  A. Darzi,et al.  Objective assessment of technical skills in surgery , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  D. Altman,et al.  Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha , 1997 .

[5]  N. Cheshire,et al.  The role of robotic endovascular catheters in fenestrated stent grafting. , 2009, Journal of vascular surgery.

[6]  F. Veith,et al.  Endovascular interventions training and credentialing for vascular surgeons. , 1999, Journal of vascular surgery.

[7]  B. Rubin,et al.  Complications of carotid artery stenting are largely preventable: a retrospective error analysis. , 2007, Perspectives in vascular surgery and endovascular therapy.

[8]  Use of the 8 French Simmons-2 guide catheter for carotid artery stent placement in patients with difficult aortic arch anatomy. , 2009, Journal of neurosurgery.

[9]  N. Cheshire,et al.  Initial Clinical Application of a Robotically Steerable Catheter System in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair , 2009, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[10]  F. Verzini,et al.  Appropriateness of learning curve for carotid artery stenting: an analysis of periprocedural complications. , 2006, Journal of vascular surgery.

[11]  A. Darzi,et al.  Experienced endovascular interventionalists objectively improve their skills by attending carotid artery stent training courses. , 2008, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[12]  Wilfried Lang,et al.  Carotid Artery Stenting: Effect of Learning Curve and Intermediate-Term Morphological Outcome , 2001, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[13]  J. Schofer,et al.  Focal ischemia of the brain after neuroprotected carotid artery stenting. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  J. Brachmann,et al.  Atrial fibrillation ablation using a robotic catheter remote control system: initial human experience and long-term follow-up results. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  Seiichiro Matsuo,et al.  Prospective randomized comparison of a steerable versus a non-steerable sheath for typical atrial flutter ablation. , 2010, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[16]  R. Reznick,et al.  Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents , 1997, The British journal of surgery.

[17]  R. Reznick,et al.  Testing technical skill via an innovative "bench station" examination. , 1997, American journal of surgery.

[18]  G. Hindricks,et al.  Long-term results and the predictors of outcome of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using steerable sheath catheter navigation after single procedure in 674 patients. , 2010, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[19]  D. Gould,et al.  Using simulation for interventional radiology training. , 2010, The British journal of radiology.