The current status of interventional radiology in Canada: results of a survey by the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association

Citation
Sf. Millward et Ml. Holley, The current status of interventional radiology in Canada: results of a survey by the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association, CAN ASSOC R, 52(2), 2001, pp. 87-91
Citations number
3
Categorie Soggetti
Radiology ,Nuclear Medicine & Imaging
Journal title
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RADIOLOGISTS JOURNAL-JOURNAL DE L ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DES RADIOLOGISTES
ISSN journal
08465371 → ACNP
Volume
52
Issue
2
Year of publication
2001
Pages
87 - 91
Database
ISI
SICI code
0846-5371(200104)52:2<87:TCSOIR>2.0.ZU;2-N
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the current status of interventional radiology in Ca nada. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 28 Canadian interventional radio logists (defined as a physician who performs any type of interventional pro cedure, including biopsies, but excluding interventional neuroradiology) pr actising in both tertiary and community hospitals in the major centres in a ll provinces except Prince Edward Island. Results: Twenty-two (79%) of 28 s urveys were completed and returned, providing data about 86 interventional radiologists (IRs).]Rs were performing almost all of the following procedur es at their institutions: inferior vena cava filter placement, venous angio plasty, dialysis fistula angioplasty, diagnostic and therapeutic pulmonary and bronchial artery procedures, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of t he lower extremity and renal arteries, percutaneous abscess and biliary dra inage procedures, percutaneous nephrostomy, and fibroid embolization. A sec ond group of procedures, performed by both IRs and non-radiologists in most institutions, included: all types of central venous catheter placements, p leural drainage, and gastrostomy tube placement. Procedures not being perfo rmed by anyone in a number of institutions included: dialysis graft thrombo lysis, varicocele embolization, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shu nts, palliative stenting of the gastrointestinal tract, fallopian tube reca nnalization, and liver and prostate tumour treatments. The factors most oft en limiting the respondents' ability to provide a comprehensive interventio nal service were the interventional radiology inventory budget and the avai lability of interventional radiology rooms; 50% of respondents indicated th e number of available nurses, technologists and IRs was also an important l imiting factor. Conclusion: IRs in Canada still play a major role in many o f the most commonly performed procedures. However, limited availability of resources and personnel in many institutions may be hampering the ability o f IRs to develop new procedures.