The Learning Curve for Transradial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Operators in the United States: A Study From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

Background— Adoption of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TRI) in the United States is low and may be related to challenges learning the technique. We examined the relationships between operator TRI volume and procedural metrics and outcomes. Methods and Results— We used CathPCI Registry data from July 2009 to December 2012 to identify new radial operators, defined by an exclusively femoral percutaneous coronary intervention approach for 6 months after their first percutaneous coronary intervention in the database and ≥15 total TRIs thereafter. Primary outcomes of fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, and procedure success were chosen as markers of technical proficiency. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, bleeding, and vascular complications. Adjusted outcomes were analyzed by using operator TRI experience as a continuous variable with generalized linear mixed models. Among 54 561 TRI procedures performed at 704 sites, 942 operators performed 1 to 10 procedures, 942 operators performed 11 to 50 procedures, 375 operators performed 51 to 100 procedures, and 148 operators performed 101 to 200 procedures. As radial caseload increased, more TRIs were performed in women, in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and for emergency indications. Decreased fluoroscopy time and contrast use were nonlinearly associated with greater operator TRI experience, with faster reductions observed for newer (<30–50 cases) compared with more experienced (>30–50 cases) operators. Procedure success was high, whereas mortality, bleeding, and vascular complications remained low across TRI volumes. Conclusions— As operator TRI volume increases, higher-risk patients are chosen for TRI. Despite this, operator proficiency improves with greater TRI experience, and safety is maintained. The threshold to overcome the learning curve appears to be approximately 30 to 50 cases.

[1]  Fang-Shu Ou,et al.  Trends in the prevalence and outcomes of radial and femoral approaches to percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. , 2008, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[2]  Sunil V. Rao,et al.  The transradial approach to percutaneous coronary intervention: historical perspective, current concepts, and future directions. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  L. Missault,et al.  Brachial, radial, or femoral approach for elective Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation: a randomized comparison. , 1997, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[4]  P. Gao,et al.  Effect of radial versus femoral access on radiation dose and the importance of procedural volume: a substudy of the multicenter randomized RIVAL trial. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[5]  M. Matheny,et al.  Risk‐Treatment Paradox in the Selection of Transradial Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , 2013, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[6]  Rajiv Gulati,et al.  Transradial arterial access for coronary and peripheral procedures: Executive summary by the transradial committee of the SCAI , 2011, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[7]  M. Morice,et al.  Coronary angiography through the radial or the femoral approach: The CARAFE study , 2001, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[8]  G. Biondi-Zoccai,et al.  Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures; Systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  Sunil J Rao,et al.  Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis , 2003 .

[10]  S. Goldberg,et al.  Learning curve in the use of the radial artery as vascular access in the performance of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. , 1998, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[11]  Salim Yusuf,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. , 2009, American heart journal.

[12]  Olivier F Bertrand,et al.  Transradial approach for coronary angiography and interventions: results of the first international transradial practice survey. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[13]  P. Dehghani,et al.  Mechanism and predictors of failed transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions. , 2009, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[14]  P. Post,et al.  The relation between volume and outcome of coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2010, European heart journal.

[15]  Sunil V. Rao,et al.  Radial First: Paradox+Proficiency=Opportunity , 2013, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[16]  A. M. Leone,et al.  Vascular complications and access crossover in 10,676 transradial percutaneous coronary procedures. , 2012, American heart journal.

[17]  W. Little,et al.  Transitioning to the radial artery as the preferred access site for cardiac catheterization: An academic medical center experience , 2012, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[18]  Karim Ratib,et al.  Impact of access site selection and operator expertise on radiation exposure; a controlled prospective study. , 2012, American heart journal.

[19]  Sunil V. Rao,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial , 2011, The Lancet.

[20]  S. El-Jack,et al.  Learning curve in transradial coronary angiography. , 2011, The American journal of cardiology.

[21]  G. Laarman,et al.  A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study. , 1997, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[22]  Christian Pristipino,et al.  Consensus document on the radial approach in percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: position paper by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care** and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology. , 2013, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[23]  Mandeep Singh,et al.  An updated bleeding model to predict the risk of post-procedure bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report using an expanded bleeding definition from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[24]  John A Spertus,et al.  Association between use of bleeding avoidance strategies and risk of periprocedural bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2010, JAMA.

[25]  John C. Messenger,et al.  Adoption of Radial Access and Comparison of Outcomes to Femoral Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (2007–2012) , 2013, Circulation.

[26]  C. Spaulding,et al.  Left radial approach for coronary angiography: results of a prospective study. , 1996, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[27]  J. Messenger,et al.  The NCDR CathPCI Registry: a US national perspective on care and outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention , 2013, Heart.

[28]  B. Gersh Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial , 2012 .

[29]  J D Hilton,et al.  Association of the arterial access site at angioplasty with transfusion and mortality: the M.O.R.T.A.L study (Mortality benefit Of Reduced Transfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention via the Arm or Leg) , 2008, Heart.

[30]  John J. Graham,et al.  Characterization of Operator Learning Curve for Transradial Coronary Interventions , 2011, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.