Assessing the Status of Mentorship Programs in Interventional Radiology Residency Training: Results of a 2018 Survey.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence and structure of mentorship programs in interventional radiology (IR) residency programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-question anonymous survey was distributed via email to all 78 program directors (PDs) of United States IR residency programs. The survey included information about the presence or absence of a formal mentorship program at their institution, how the program functions, potential barriers to implementation, and future plans for mentorship. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 78 integrated IR residency PDs completed the survey (response rate 29.5%). Thirteen of 23 reports that they currently have a formal mentorship program in place and 11 of 13 report no direct departmental support for mentorship. Of those that do not have a mentorship program in place, 5 of 10 report that implementation is underway. These programs report that the absence of a mentorship program is due to a lack of dedicated time and financial support. While 8 of 23 PDs were unaware of the Society of Interventional Radiology Mentor Match program, 6of 23 were registered as mentors through it. Nearly all PDs reported interest in receiving mentoring resources from SIR with the most popular choices being a dedicated mentorship educational course at the SIR annual meeting and regular mentorship articles and practical tips in publications such as IR quarterly. CONCLUSIONS: Despite involvement of many IR PDs in mentorship, numerous residency programs lack a formal mentorship program. Of those with a program, most don't receive direct departmental support and those without a program cite lack of time and financial support as barriers to effective implementation.

Use of a steerable microcatheter during superselective angiography: impact on radiation exposure and procedural efficiency.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To study steerable microcatheter (SM) use in moderate and highly difficult vessel selection compared to conventional pre-shaped microcatheter (CM) use. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An IRB approved, single institution analysis of 40 complex angiographic procedures with and without superselective microcatheter use during an eight-month period in 2017 was performed. Target vessels were deemed moderate or highly difficult to select based on vessel size, tortuosity, and/or angulation during non-selective initial angiography. Data collected included type of microcatheter used (SM or CM), number of microcatheters and microwires used, procedure time, radiation exposure index (dose area product/DAP), target vessel location, and time to target vessel selection (TTVS; time from device placement to vessel selection). Comparison between the SM and CM groups was performed using Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: A SM (SwiftNinja, Merit Medical, South Jordan, UT, USA) was used to select 46 vessels in 20 patients. One or more CMs were used in 20 patients to select 34 vessels. Median TTVS, number of microwires used, total procedure time, and DAP (microGray.m2) were 12 vs. 462.5 s (p < 0.0001), 0 vs. 2 (p < 0.001), and 26,948 vs. 30,904 (p = 0.15) in the SM vs. CM groups, respectively. When adjusted for body mass index (BMI) using a linear model for radiation exposure, patients in the SM group had lower radiation exposure than those in the CM group (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of a steerable microcatheter, without or with a guidewire, leads to easier and faster target vessel selection with shorter procedure times in complex vessel anatomy.