Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Although intravascular imaging (IVI) and invasive coronary physiology (ICP) are utilized in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with robust positive clinical evidence, their adoption in cardiac catheterization laboratories (CCLs) is still limited.
Aims: The aim of our survey was to assess the perspectives on the experiences of allied health professionals in CCLs' utility of IVI and ICP.
Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted through multiple channels, including the Cardiovascular Research Technologies (CRT) 2023 Nurses and Technologists Symposium, social media, Cath Lab Digest link, and field requests, leading to diverse representation of allied health professionals.
Results: A total of 101 CCL members participated in the survey. First, 59% of responders noted an increased use of IVI in their institutions over recent years. For those experiencing an increase, 49% credited training, 45% emerging evidence, and 34% attributed new CCL members. Barriers to IVI usage were perceived increased procedure time (58%), staff resistance (56%), procedural cost (48%), and difficulty interpreting findings (44%). Regarding ICP, 61% reported using it in approximately 25% to 75% of cases, while 10% utilized it in 75% to 100% of CCL procedures. Interpreting ICP results was mixed, with 56% confident in interpreting all ICP results and 6% unable to interpret any ICP results.
Conclusion: Our findings highlight opportunities for increasing routine utilization of IVI and ICP in the CCL through allied health professionals. By providing education and training, we can elevate familiarity with the equipment and subsequently build a CCL culture that advocates for both IVI and ICP.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31175 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!