Endovascular Training Using a Simulation Based Curriculum is Less Expensive than Training in the Hybrid Angiosuite

This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of a PROficiency based StePwise Endovascular Curricular Training (PROSPECT) program, including e-learning and hands on virtual reality simulation.

A prospective, single blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) was carried out to evaluate the impact of a PROSPECT training program on real life operative performance. Under supervision, all subjects performed two endovascular interventions on patients with symptomatic iliac and/or superficial femoral artery stenosis. Primary outcomes were technical performance (Global Rating Scale, Examiner Checklist), operative metrics, and patient outcomes, adjusted for case difficulty and the trainee's experience. Additionally, an analysis of costs and savings related to implementation of this endovascular training program was performed. Thirty-two general surgery trainees were randomised into three groups: group 1 (n = 11) received e-learning and simulation training (PROSPECT program); group 2 (n = 10) only had access to e-learning; group 3 (n = 11) did not receive supplementary education besides clinical training. Developmental cost, implementation cost, training time cost, and the operational cost of PROSPECT were determined. Time spent studying and practicing was converted to indirect saving of operating time. The costs of logistics, faculty time supervising simulation sessions, and 30 day complication rates were registered. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the results.

Fifty-eight peripheral endovascular interventions, performed by 29 surgical trainees (three dropouts) were included in this RCT from October 2014 to February 2016. Annual costs from the perspective of the hospital were €6589 for curriculum design, €31,484 for implementation, and €1143 in operational costs. Per trainee, simulation based training until proficiency cost €3806. In comparison, if endovascular proficiency levels were obtained with conventional training only, this may have cost €5001 per trainee.

Simulation based training in endovascular procedures may be cost saving, because training occurs outside the angiosuite. It is possible that cost savings are underestimated as, in contrast to the literature, prevented costs related to complications could not be defined.