Comparing the Efficacy of Endovascular Simulation Training in Different Training Formats: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: High-fidelity endovascular simulators have demonstrated significant potential in enhancing interventionalists' performance metrics, including procedure time (PT), fluoroscopy time (FT), and contrast volume (CV) usage. However, it is less clear whether trainee performance, when assessed using both multidimensional global and procedure-specific rating scales (PSRS), improves in a manner consistent with these metric parameters. This study aimed to determine whether the structure of the training-conducted in block sessions or weekly intervals-impacts the effectiveness of the training.

Methods: Twenty students were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial. They were randomly divided into block and weekly training groups, each undergoing 6 hrs of supervised endovascular training on a Mentice simulator over a span of 3 weeks. At the outset and conclusion of their training, students performed a predefined peripheral endovascular intervention, which was assessed by an experienced interventionalist. Furthermore, participants were prompted to complete a survey at both the beginning and the end of the study.

Results: Both groups exhibited significant improvements in PT, FT, CV usage, global rating scale (GRS) scores, and performance-specific rating scale scores. However, no significant difference was observed between the 2 groups. The simulator training notably boosted the trainee's self-confidence.

Conclusions: Simulator training not only enhances metric performance parameters but also improves performance as assessed by both GRS and PSRS. Whether the training is conducted in block sessions or weekly intervals did not affect its efficacy. As such, the training format can be tailored to best fit the specific circumstances and setting.