Kwan S. Lee MD , Andrew J. Klein MD , Rory S. Bricker MD , Arash Salavitabar MD , Nkechinyere N. Ijioma MD , Julia H. Indik MD, PhD , Sasanka N. Jayasuriya MD , F. David Fortuin MD , Abdulla A. Damluji MD, PhD, MBA , Emmanouil S. Brilakis MD, PhD , Dmitriy N. Feldman MD , Timothy D. Henry MD , John C. Messenger MD
{"title":"Current State of Simulation in Interventional Cardiology Training: Results of a SCAI Survey","authors":"Kwan S. Lee MD , Andrew J. Klein MD , Rory S. Bricker MD , Arash Salavitabar MD , Nkechinyere N. Ijioma MD , Julia H. Indik MD, PhD , Sasanka N. Jayasuriya MD , F. David Fortuin MD , Abdulla A. Damluji MD, PhD, MBA , Emmanouil S. Brilakis MD, PhD , Dmitriy N. Feldman MD , Timothy D. Henry MD , John C. Messenger MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jscai.2025.102566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Interventional cardiology (IC) is well suited to simulation education, with a wide spectrum of digital and physical models for procedural training. Despite this, standardization, validation, and access to simulation training remains inconsistent in the United States and globally. Ten years have elapsed since the last Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) expert consensus statement on simulation in IC, which included a survey of US program directors. In this document, we report the results of a follow-up survey with the goal of broadening polling to all career stages, both in the US and internationally.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A web-based 19-item survey with embedded subquestions was sent out via email solicitation to SCAI members from September 2023 to December 2023.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 420 responses were collected, with a 15% response rate. Nearly 70% of respondents were from the US. There was equal distribution in responses for all stages of training, with most respondents performing coronary procedures. Two-thirds had previous exposure to simulation training with most using digital simulators and reporting only 1 to 2 days of exposure for each type or procedure. A majority (71%) felt that they had insufficient simulation training; most felt that simulation fidelity was average. The biggest barrier to simulation training was a lack of access.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Despite efforts to develop simulation in IC training, there remain gaps in accessibility, exposure, and curricula. Professional organizations, industry, and educational governing bodies must collaborate on specific, actionable strategies to enhance access to high-fidelity IC simulation training globally.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73990,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 102566"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772930325000079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Interventional cardiology (IC) is well suited to simulation education, with a wide spectrum of digital and physical models for procedural training. Despite this, standardization, validation, and access to simulation training remains inconsistent in the United States and globally. Ten years have elapsed since the last Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) expert consensus statement on simulation in IC, which included a survey of US program directors. In this document, we report the results of a follow-up survey with the goal of broadening polling to all career stages, both in the US and internationally.
Methods
A web-based 19-item survey with embedded subquestions was sent out via email solicitation to SCAI members from September 2023 to December 2023.
Results
In total, 420 responses were collected, with a 15% response rate. Nearly 70% of respondents were from the US. There was equal distribution in responses for all stages of training, with most respondents performing coronary procedures. Two-thirds had previous exposure to simulation training with most using digital simulators and reporting only 1 to 2 days of exposure for each type or procedure. A majority (71%) felt that they had insufficient simulation training; most felt that simulation fidelity was average. The biggest barrier to simulation training was a lack of access.
Conclusions
Despite efforts to develop simulation in IC training, there remain gaps in accessibility, exposure, and curricula. Professional organizations, industry, and educational governing bodies must collaborate on specific, actionable strategies to enhance access to high-fidelity IC simulation training globally.