Key result
Survey details structural heart training volumes and curriculum integration strategies across US interventional fellowship programs.
Why the study?
Training in structural heart disease interventions remains in its infancy compared to well-established coronary and peripheral intervention training in ACGME-accredited interventional cardiology fellowship programs.
Cross-Sectional
Yes
This survey assesses the current state of structural heart disease training in US interventional cardiology fellowship programs.
Variable fellow exposure to structural procedures warrants caution in assuming uniform competency; leaves open standardized training requirements.
Over the last decade, structural heart disease interventions have emerged as a new field in interventional cardiology. Currently, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited interventional cardiology fellowship programs in the United States provide high-quality and well established training curriculum in coronary and peripheral interventions, but training in structural interventions remains in its infancy. The current survey seeks to collect relevant information and assess the opinion of interventional cardiology program directors in ACGME-accredited institutions that are actively involved in structural interventional training. Our study describes the actual number of structural procedures performed by interventional cardiology fellows in ACGME-accredited programs, the form of the structural training today and the suggestions from program directors who are actively trying to integrate structural training in the interventional cardiology fellowship programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marmagkiolis et al. (2012) conducted a cross-sectional in Structural heart disease training. Survey on structural heart disease training was evaluated on Number of structural procedures performed by fellows, form of structural training, and suggestions from program directors. A survey of US interventional cardiology program directors assessed the number of structural procedures performed by fellows, current training formats, and suggestions for curriculum integration.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: