Clinical IR in Canada: The Evolution of a Revolution

To investigate the current status and evolution of both the interventional radiologist's role as a clinician and the practice of interventional radiology (IR) over the past decade in Canada.

In 2015, an online survey was e-mailed to 210 interventional radiologists, including all Canadian active members of the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association (CIRA) and nonmembers who attended CIRA's annual meeting. Comparisons were made between interventional radiologists in academic versus community practice. The results of the 2015 survey were compared with CIRA's national surveys from 2005 and 2010.

A total of 102 interventional radiologists responded (response rate 49%). Significantly more academic versus community interventional radiologists performed chemoembolization, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, aortic interventions, and arteriovenous malformation embolization (P < .05). Ninety percent of respondents were involved in longitudinal patient care, which had increased by 42% compared with 2005; 46% of interventional radiologists had overnight admitting privileges, compared with 39% in 2010 and 29% in 2005. Eighty-six percent of interventional radiologists accepted direct referrals from family physicians, and 83% directly referred patients to other consultants. Sixty-three percent participated in multidisciplinary tumor board. The main challenges facing interventional radiologists included a lack of infrastructure, inadequate remuneration for IR procedures, and inadequate funding for IR equipment. Significantly more community versus academic interventional radiologists perceived work volume as an important issue facing the specialty in 2015 (60% vs 34%; P = .02).

Over the past decade, many Canadian interventional radiologists have embraced the interventional radiologist-clinician role. However, a lack of infrastructure and funding continue to impede more widespread adoption of clinical IR practice.