www.interventionalnews.com
Profile: Jonathan Moss
First@ CIRSE: CLTI, BTK, VTE November 2023 | Issue 92
SIO President Muneeb Ahmed
page 16
page 8
You can’t always get what you want, but you may get what you need: IR and the global path to primary specialty
Minimallyinvasive procedures
page 21
ntroducing the ‘Applying for IR specialty status: lessons learned’ session at the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2023 annual meeting (9–13 September, Copenhagen, Denmark), Michael Lee (Beaumont Hospital and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland) asked: “What is wrong with IR?” Among his responses, Lee noted “there is little recognition, little visibility and most importantly, little credibility”. Speaking to Interventional News, Lee expanded on his statement, averring that visibility remains a “big issue”, rendering IR “completely invisible” to the health authorities who provide vital funding, as well as medical students in training who may elect to subscribe to IR. “We are fishing in the wrong pond,” Lee averred, “[medical students] do not know what IR is. There is little mentorship or teaching—I am generalising, as there are excellent medical student educational programmes in certain large academic centres, but in the real world, outside of these large centres, medical students do not know who we are.” He described how, often, their “pond” is synonymous with trainees who enter diagnostic radiology but “not to do a hands-on specialty” like IR, they then must be “[convinced]” otherwise by interventional radiologists like Lee advocating for the specialty. In New Zealand and Australia, the line between diagnostic and IR is equally blurred—Nick Brown (The Wesley Hospital, Auchenflower, New Zealand) explained that interventional radiologists are recognised as ‘special diagnostic radiologists’, which is the only specialty title available to fellows of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR). Brown is advocating for the creation of a ‘Specialist interventional radiologist’ title which would provide “an identity” to “elevate [IR] status and promote the high-value care that interventional radiologists provide to patients”.
Paediatric interventional radiologists call for intendedfor-use device development
Patient consultations
Imaging techniques
Technological innovation
Image interpretation
Over several decades, interventional radiology (IR) has scaled to significant heights, leading technological advancements and minimally-invasive techniques. As these milestones have been reached, however, historical pitfalls have deepened, prompting international discussion about the current structure of IR and the value of obtaining clinical specialty status. Building a figurative heatmap of IR’s progress to specialty today, Interventional News spoke to interventional radiologists around the globe to track the field’s burgeoning recognition, concurrent problems and future stability.
I
Interview
Radiation mitigation
Patient follow-up
To gain formal recognition for IR at his centre however, practice must be accompanied by an accredited training programme, said Brown. “Thus, RANZCR is working with the Society for Interventional Radiology in Australia and NZ (IRSA) and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Neuroradiology (ANZSNR) to develop, for the first time, two specialist training programmes in IR and interventional neuroradiology (INR).” Having an “identified pathway” to IR specialism Brown said, will “unlock the full clinical capacity of IR”, including the creation of clinical units and consulting rights, and could “attract appropriate funding and reimbursement for their departments and hospitals”, he stated. Issues with ill-defined IR training pathways are also reported in the UK, as Raman Uberoi (The John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK)—recipient of the British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) 2023 Gold Medal for his ‘outstanding contribution to the work of both the society and interventional radiology’—explained, outlining a culture of “jumping through hoops” to access IR in the UK. He noted how entrance to the field can be “vague”. Often trainees enter into radiology and learn about imaging for the first three years before having the
There is little recognition, little visibility and most importantly, little credibility.” Michael Lee
LAGGING BEHIND THE RAPID advancements within the speciality as a whole, a 2023 study titled ‘Is there really no kit for kids?’ has identified the continuing “unmet need” for paediatric interventional radiology (IR) devices. Although off-label device usage has been standard in paediatric cases, Premal Patel (Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK) told Interventional News of “changing regulations” in Europe— with repercussions worldwide—which has forced manufacturers to state a definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in device instructions for use (IFU) in reference to children. In light of recent international device withdrawals and license regulation updates, Patel, Fernando Gómez Muñoz (Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Alessandro Gasparetto (The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada) surveyed the current state of paediatric IR and the global device deficit. In May 2021, the European Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) introduced an update stating their intention to “bring EU legislation into line with technical advances, changes in medical science and progress in law-making”, stating that all medical devices must meet “robust”, “internationally recognised” safety criteria and apply for new certification. The directive requires that manufacturers explicitly state whether devices can be used in paediatric patients, as well as additional costs to obtain certification for product lines. In 2023, the European MDR extended the deadline for manufacturers to comply with the requirements to 2027–2028 depending on the device. “They are making it harder for companies to keep licenses,” Patel said, “the way companies typically got around this is by just not saying anything”. Looking at this in greater depth, Patel et al’s cross-sectional analysis of device IFU assessed the inclusion of children in vascular access, biopsy, drainage and enteral feeding devices from 28 companies who sponsored the British Society of Interventional Continued on page 4
Continued on page 6