Clinical Practice Patterns for Transradial Coronary Artery Catheterisation in Australian and New Zealand: Mixed-Methods Survey and Interview Study
Résumé fourni par la source
BackgroundWhile there has been an increase in the use of the transradial approach when performing percutaneous coronary angiography and intervention, there is evidence of variations in international practice. Ensuring that operators’ practices are supported by evidence is important to ensure optimal outcomes.MethodInterventional cardiologists and advanced trainees completed a cross-sectional survey followed by semi-structured interviews to map current practices for transradial coronary artery procedures in Australia and New Zealand and explore factors that influence clinical decision-making around procedural practice.ResultsThe right radial artery was the preferred access site (88%). Over a third (37%) of the participants indicated that they tested the hand circulation pre-procedure. Over a quarter of respondents (28.6%) reported that they would carry out transradial procedures regardless of the patient’s coagulation status. Most participants (77.8%) described radial artery spasm in around 10% of transradial procedures performed. Only 62% of participants assessed for radial artery occlusion post-catheterisation. Interview data revealed four themes that guided clinical decision-making, namely (1) Decision-making based on research, (2) Using clinical experience, (3) Being led by their training, and (4) Individual patient factors.ConclusionsThis study has demonstrated that despite clinical guidelines, substantial practice variation exists in transradial coronary artery catheterisation across Australia and New Zealand. The variation in practice and factors impacting clinical decision-making highlight a need for future strategies to optimise evidence translation and implementation across clinical settings. While there has been an increase in the use of the transradial approach when performing percutaneous coronary angiography and intervention, there is evidence of variations in international practice. Ensuring that operators’ practices are supported by evidence is important to ensure optimal outcomes. Interventional cardiologists and advanced trainees completed a cross-sectional survey followed by semi-structured interviews to map current practices for transradial coronary artery procedures in Australia and New Zealand and explore factors that influence clinical decision-making around procedural practice. The right radial artery was the preferred access site (88%). Over a third (37%) of the participants indicated that they tested the hand circulation pre-procedure. Over a quarter of respondents (28.6%) reported that they would carry out transradial procedures regardless of the patient’s coagulation status. Most participants (77.8%) described radial artery spasm in around 10% of transradial procedures performed. Only 62% of participants assessed for radial artery occlusion post-catheterisation. Interview data revealed four themes that guided clinical decision-making, namely (1) Decision-making based on research, (2) Using clinical experience, (3) Being led by their training, and (4) Individual patient factors. This study has demonstrated that despite clinical guidelines, substantial practice variation exists in transradial coronary artery catheterisation across Australia and New Zealand. The variation in practice and factors impacting clinical decision-making highlight a need for future strategies to optimise evidence translation and implementation across clinical settings.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Clinical Practice Patterns for Transradial Coronary Artery Catheterisation in Australian and New Zealand: Mixed-Methods Survey and Interview Study
- Date Crossref
- 01/09/2024
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.