Working with Hospital Administration: Strategies for Success.

Organizational structure has evolved over the past several decades, with physicians assuming more or fewer leadership positions over time. Regardless of the role of physicians in health care organizational leadership, constant meaningful communication with the hospital, radiology group, or greater physician group administrative leadership is vital for any group of IR physicians to be successful. Understanding what is considered important to hospital administration and, in particular, being closely aligned with the C-suite leadership, is paramount to having successful communication with these stakeholders. Although each situation will obligatorily be unique, certain themes can be followed to optimize the working relationship between an interventional radiology service and organizational administration. This article provides guidelines and suggestions specifically in communicating with health care system leadership.

Hypertensive and Hypotensive Emergencies in Interventional Radiology.

Hyper- and hypotensive emergencies represent some of the most severe clinical issues that can occur during or around an interventional radiology procedure. While some patients are known to be more predisposed to cardiovascular collapse, nearly all patients are at risk for such an outcome. This is particularly true of patients undergoing moderate sedation, with the possibility of cardiovascular compromise occurring not just due to the underlying pathology for which the patient is being treated, but as a complication of sedation itself. Understanding the underlying cause of hyper- or hypotension is paramount to performing an appropriate and timely intervention. While the underlying cause is being corrected-if possible-the changes in blood pressure themselves may need to be intervened upon to maintain cardiovascular stability in these patients. Interventional radiologists must be familiar with measures taken to correct hyper- or hypotensive emergencies, including the most commonly used medications to treat these disorders. This article discusses the most common etiologies of such clinical scenarios, and the most common interventions performed for these settings.

Pericardial Drain Placement in Interventional Radiology: An Overview.

Pericardial effusions can occur from multiple different etiologies. Although often incidentally noted or clinically silent, pericardial effusions may cause significant hemodynamic compromise. In some of these patients, pericardiocentesis may be temporizing only and either repeat procedures or placement of pericardial drains may be preferable. While cardiologists typically perform pericardial drain placement, it is a procedure that may also be performed by interventional radiologists. This article describes for the interventional radiologist the indications and placement technique, as well as potential complications occurring from pericardial drain placement.

Evaluation of a clinical decision support tool to predict permanence of retrievable inferior vena cava filters.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of a published clinical decision support tool to predict the likelihood of a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter being maintained as a permanent device. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included 1498 consecutive patients (852 men and 646 women; median age, 60 years; range, 18-98 years) who underwent retrievable IVC filter insertion between January 2012 and December 2019. The indications for IVC filtration, baseline neurologic disease, history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and underlying malignancy were recorded. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of a published clinical support tool were calculated to determine the usefulness of the tool. RESULTS: The majority of filters (1271/1498 [85%]) were placed for VTE with a contraindication to anticoagulation. A history of VTE was present in 811 of 1498 patients (54%) patients; underlying malignancy in 531 of 1498 patients (35%), and neurological disease in 258 of 1498 patients (17%). Of the 1498 filters, 456 (30%) were retrieved, 276 (18%) were maintained as permanent devices on follow-up, and 766 (51%) filters were not retrieved. The accuracy of the clinical prediction model was 61%, sensitivity was 60%, and specificity was 62%. CONCLUSIONS: A previously published clinical decision support tool to predict permanence of IVC filters had modest usefulness in the examined population; this factor should be taken into account when using this clinical decision support tool outside of the original study population. Future studies are required to refine the predictive capability of IVC filter decision support tools for broader use across different patient populations.