Gender Disparity in Industry Relationships With Academic Interventional Radiology Physicians.

OBJECTIVE. Industry relationships drive technologic innovation in interventional radiology and offer opportunities for professional growth. Women are underrepresented in interventional radiology despite the growing recognition of the importance of diversity. This study characterized gender disparities in financial relationships between industry and academic interventional radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, U.S. academic interventional radiology physicians and their academic ranks were identified by searching websites of practices with accredited interventional radiology fellowship programs. Publicly available databases were queried to collect each physician's gender, years since medical school graduation, h-index, academic rank, and industry payments in 2018. Wilcoxon and chi-square tests compared payments between genders. A general linear model assessed the impact of academic rank, years since graduation, gender, and h-index on payments. RESULTS. Of 842 academic interventional radiology physicians, 108 (13%) were women. A total $14,206,599.41 was received by 686 doctors (81%); only $147,975.28 (1%) was received by women. A lower percentage of women (74%) than men (83%) received payments (p = 0.04); median total payments were lower for women ($535) than men ($792) (p = 0.01). Academic rank, h-index, years since graduation, and male gender were independent predictors of higher payments. Industry payments supporting technologic advancement were made exclusively to men. CONCLUSION. Female interventional radiology physicians received fewer and lower industry payments, earning 1% of total payments despite constituting 13% of physicians. Gender independently predicted industry payments, regardless of h-index, academic rank, or years since graduation. Gender disparity in interventional radiology physician-industry relationships warrants further investigation and correction.

Clinical Practice Patterns of Interventional Radiologists by Gender.

OBJECTIVE. Given recent specialty attention to workforce diversity, we aimed to characterize potential gender differences in the practice patterns of interventional radiologists (IRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using Medicare claims data, we identified IRs on the basis of the distribution of their billed clinical work effort and descriptively characterized practice patterns by gender. RESULTS. Women represented 8.2% (241/2936) of all IRs identified nationally. Female representation varied geographically (≤ 2% in nine states, ≥ 20% in three states) and by career stage (9.4% among early-career IRs and 6.4% among late-career IRs; 18.8% among early-career IRs in the Northeast). For both female IRs and male IRs, interventional case mixes were similar across service categories (e.g., venous and hemodialysis access, arterial and venous interventions, biopsies and drainages) and by procedural complexity (e.g., 5.7% vs 4.3% for low-complexity procedures and 59.5% vs 61.3% for high-complexity procedures). Average patient complexity scores were also similar for female (2.7 ± 12 [SD]) and male (2.8 ± 12) IRs. Female IRs spent slightly lower portions of their work effort rendering invasive services (66.5% vs 70.0%, respectively) and noninvasive diagnostic imaging (19.0% vs 22.2%) than male IRs but spent more time in evaluation and management clinical visits (14.5% vs 7.9%). Both female IRs and male IRs rendered a majority of their services to female patients (53.4% vs 53.1%). CONCLUSION. Although women remain underrepresented in interventional radiology, female IRs' interventional case composition, procedural complexity, and patient complexity are similar to those of their male colleagues. Female IRs' higher proportion of evaluation and management clinical visits supports the specialty's increased focus on longitudinal care so that interventional radiology will thrive alongside other clinical specialties.

Needlestick Injuries in Interventional Radiology Are Common and Underreported.

Purpose To determine the prevalence of and risk factors for needlesticks in interventional radiology physicians, as well as the attitudes, behaviors, and conditions that promote or interfere with reporting of these injuries. Materials and Methods A total of 3889 interventional radiologists from academic and private practice in the United States were surveyed by emailing all interventional radiologist members of the Society of Interventional Radiology, including attending-level physicians and trainees (April-August 2016). The institutional review board waived the need for consent. Questions inquired about the nature, frequency, and type of needlestick and sharps injuries and whether and to whom these incidents were reported. Stepwise regression was used to determine variables predicting whether injuries were reported. Results In total, 908 (23%) interventional radiologists completed at least a portion of the survey. Eight hundred fourteen (91%) of 895 respondents reported a prior needlestick injury, 583 (35%) of 895 reported at least one injury while treating an HIV-positive patient, and 626 (71%) of 884 reported prior training regarding needlestick injury. There was, on average, one needlestick for every 5 years of practice. Most needlestick or sharps injuries were self inflicted (711 [87%] of 817) and involved a hollow-bore device (464 [56%] of 824). Only 566 (66%) of 850 injuries were reported. The most common reasons for not reporting included perceived lack of utility of reporting (79 [28%] of 282), perceived low risk for injury (56 [20%] of 282), noncontaminated needle (53 [19%] of 282), too-lengthy reporting process (37 [13%] of 282), and associated stigma (23 [8%] of 282). Only 156 (25%) of 624 respondents informed their significant other. Stepwise regression assessing variables affecting the likelihood of reporting showed that male sex (P = .009), low-risk patient (P < .0001), self injury (P = .010), trainee status (P < .0001), and the total number of prior injuries (P = .019) were independent predictors of not reporting. Conclusion Needlestick injuries are ubiquitous among interventional radiologists and are often not reported. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Factors associated with reduced radiation exposure, cost, and technical difficulty of inferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval.

We sought to delineate factors of inferior vena cava filter placement associated with increased radiation and cost and difficult subsequent retrieval. In total, 299 procedures from August 2013 to December 2014, 252 in a fluoroscopy suite (FS) and 47 in the operating room (OR), were reviewed for radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, filter type, and angulation. The number of retrieval devices and fluoroscopy time needed for retrieval were assessed. Multiple linear regression assessed the impact of filter type, procedure location, and patient and procedural variables on radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and filter angulation. Logistic regression assessed the impact of filter angulation, type, and filtration duration on retrieval difficulty. Access site and filter type had no impact on radiation exposure. However, placement in the OR, compared to the FS, entailed more radiation (156.3 vs 71.4 mGy; P = 0.001), fluoroscopy time (6.1 vs 2.8 min; P < 0.001), and filter angulation (4.8° vs 2.6°; P < 0.001). Angulation was primarily dependent on filter type (P = 0.02), with VenaTech and Denali filters associated with decreased angulation (2.2°, 2.4°) and Option filters associated with greater angulation (4.2°). Filter angulation, but not filter type or filtration duration, predicted cases requiring >1 retrieval device (P < 0.001) and >30 min fluoroscopy time (P = 0.02). Cost savings for placement in the FS vs OR were estimated at $444.50 per case. In conclusion, increased radiation and cost were associated with placement in the OR. Filter angulation independently predicted difficult filter retrieval; angulation was determined by filter type. Performing filter placement in the FS using specific filters may reduce radiation and cost while enabling future retrieval.