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.
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.
Study Finds Transvaginal Ultrasound Unreliable for Detecting Endometrial Cancer in Black Patients
July 3rd 2024Utilizing a threshold of less than 5 mm of ultrasound-measured endometrial thickness, the authors of a new study noted an 11.4 percent false-negative probability for endometrial cancer in Black patients.
New Study Shows Non-Radiologists Interpreting 28 Percent of Imaging for Medicare Patients
June 28th 2024While radiologists interpreted approximately 99 percent of all non-cardiac CT, MRI and nuclear medicine studies in hospital and emergency department settings for Medicare beneficiaries, new research shows significantly less radiologist review of cardiac imaging and office-based imaging.
FDA Clears Pocket-Sized ECG System and AI Technology for Detection of Cardiac Conditions
June 27th 2024Using a reduced leadset and deep neural network algorithms trained on more than 175 million electrocardiograms, the KAI 12L technology reportedly detects up to 35 cardiac determinations, including acute myocardial infarction.