In a recent interview, Eric Secemsky, M.D., discussed an array of benefits for the use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in supplementing angiography for peripheral vascular interventions, current barriers preventing more widespread adoption of the technology and other salient insights from a recent multidisciplinary roundtable discussion.
Eric Secemsky, M.D. says there can be a fair amount of assumptions and guesswork with sole reliance on angiography to inform peripheral vascular interventions.
For example, an angiogram provides “a very poor understanding” of a significant amount of pathology that occurs on the luminal surface of the vessel, noted Dr. Secemsky in a recent interview. He maintained that intravascular ultrasound can provide greater clarity on this pathology as well as lesion severity and morphology, vessel measurements and where disease segments begin and end.
“These are just a few of the many areas where intravascular imaging catheters can really help augment and support angiography,” noted Dr. Secemsky, the director of vascular intervention and section head of interventional cardiology and vascular research with the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
To that end, Dr. Secemsky recently led a multidisciplinary roundtable discussion, comprised of interventional radiologists, interventional cardiologists, and vascular surgeons, to discuss emerging evidence on the use of intravascular ultrasound to bolster decision-making and help improve outcomes for peripheral vascular interventions in the lower extremity.
(Editor’s note: For related content, see “Key Takeaways from Multidisciplinary Roundtable on Intravascular Ultrasound Use for Peripheral Vascular Interventions” and “Intravascular Ultrasound for Lower Extremity Interventions: Seven Takeaways from New Global Consensus Recommendations.”)
While acknowledging different practice settings and pressures to turn over rooms for procedures, Dr. Secemsky said the perception that using imaging catheters increases procedure time is a fallacy. Research in the coronary intervention space has demonstrated that increased familiarity with imaging catheters shows no increased procedure time and additional benefits such as reduced radiation time and exposure to contrast media, according to Dr. Secemsky, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.
For further insights from Dr. Secemsky, watch the video below.
Leading Breast Radiologists Discuss the USPSTF Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations
May 17th 2024In recognition of National Women’s Health Week, Dana Bonaminio, MD, Amy Patel, MD, and Stacy Smith-Foley, MD, shared their thoughts and perspectives on the recently updated breast cancer screening recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
The Reading Room: Racial and Ethnic Minorities, Cancer Screenings, and COVID-19
November 3rd 2020In this podcast episode, Dr. Shalom Kalnicki, from Montefiore and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, discusses the disparities minority patients face with cancer screenings and what can be done to increase access during the pandemic.
Appealing Prior Authorization Denials: Can it be Effective for Emerging Technologies?
May 14th 2024While radiologists and other providers may be discouraged by insurer denials saying the use of a technological advance is “unproven and investigational,” 82 percent of appeals for prior authorization denials were approved in 2021.
Current Insights and Emerging Roles for Contrast-Enhanced Mammography
May 10th 2024In a recent lecture at the 2024 ARRS Annual Meeting, Jordana Phillips, MD, discussed the role of contrast-enhanced mammography in staging breast cancer, evaluating response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recalls from screening.