This evaluation shows structured training reduces access-site complications, suggesting improved patient safety through collaboration.
Summary: Background: Vascular access–site complications after catheterization remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. While patient- and procedure-related risk factors are well described, the impact of structured, interdisciplinary training programs is less well established. We evaluated the effect of a structured training program for cardiologists and interventional staff on access-site–related complications after transfemoral coronary interventions. Patients and methods: Over 36 months, we tracked all elective transfemoral coronary interventions at our institution. After an initial 6-month observational phase, we implemented a structured training program for cardiologists and catheter lab staff, using initial complication rates as the baseline. The training included quarterly sessions, pre-interventional angiological assessment for high-risk patients, pre-interventional assessment for all patients, and sheath removal by assistants. We prospectively assessed all access-site related complications using a standardized protocol and analysed incidence changes with a regression model, adjusting for patient-specific risk factors over time. Results: Quarterly training and pre-interventional angiological assessment for high-risk patients did not significantly impact complication rates. However, pre-interventional angiographical assessment for all patients and sheath removal training for assistants significantly reduced complication rates. The results remained consistent after adjusting for patient-specific risk factors. Conclusions: Structured angiological training for interventional staff significantly reduces access-site related complications. Interdisciplinary collaboration enhances patient safety and minimizes adverse events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schuett et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: