Table 1.
First author (No. of Perform. MDs) | No. of Patients | Procedure Time (min) | Fluoroscopy Time (min) | Contrast Volume (mL) | No. of Angiograms | Other End Points | Kirkpatrick’s Level | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CAS | ||||||||
Wooster (2018) [17] (3 MDs) | 6 PsR | 31.9 (14.2–54) + | 11.4 (5.4–19.8) | 59.2 (29–108) + | N/A | 3 | ||
9 controls | 42.5 (30.9–69) + | 19.4 (9.8–38) + | 76.9 (38–120) + | |||||
EVAR | ||||||||
Desender (2016) [16] (99 MDs) a and Desender (2017) [13] b | 50 PsR | 52.1 (46.2–58.8) + | 15.3 (12.7–18.3) + | 81 (73–91) + | 6.5 (5.9–7.2) + | Proximal landing zone: −23% *,+ Distal landing zone: −21% *,+ |
Reduction in minor errors: −26% * Reduction in major errors: −76% * Reduction in errors causing delay: −27% * |
4 |
50 controls | 54.6 (48.4–61.6) + | 14.4 (12–17.3) + | 93 (84–104) + | 7.5 (6.7–8.2) + | Technical success rates: Primary: PsR 82% vs. control 78% Ass. Primary PsR 94% vs. control 86% |
|||
Våpenstad (2020) [18] (16 MDs) c | 30 PsR | 44 (23–129) * | 24 (14–53) | 90 (60–260) | 7 (4–18) | Technical success rates: Primary: PsR 93% vs. control 77% Ass. Primary: PsR 3,3% vs. control 13% |
3 | |
30 controls | 55 (27–132) | 27 (14–55) | 107 (24–240) | 7 (4–20) |
CAS = carotid artery stenting; EVAR = endovascular aortic aneurism repair; N/A = not available; PsR = patient-specific rehearsal; MD = Medical Doctor. All values are medians (range) unless otherwise stated. Metrics compare PsR vs. no PsR (control). * Statistically significant P-value (p < 0.05). + Mean values (range). a Sixty-eight percent of the procedures were performed by an experienced team, defined as a team in which at least 2 out of 3 members had performed at least 50 EVAR cases. b Desender et al. (2016) and Desender et al. (2017) are based on the same patient group, each article presenting different data. Green text represents Desender et al. (2017). c Five had less than 2 years’ experience, and the others had more than 2 years. There was at least one experienced operator present at each procedure.