Article
Open Access
Volume 5 · Issue 2 · 2025
pp. 59–65
Perceptions of Interventional Cardiologists in Türkiye Toward Domestic Coronary Devices: A Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey
Hasan Burak İşleyen1, Ertuğrul Okuyan2
1
Department of Cardiology, Nişantası University Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Türkiye
2
Department of Cardiology, Medipol University Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Türkiye
Abstract
Objectives: Türkiye has pursued policies to reduce external dependence on medical technologies; however, physi-cian-level evidence on domestically manufactured coronary devices is limited. We evaluated self-reported utilization, satisfaction, and future-adoption attitudes toward locally manufactured diagnostic catheters, guiding catheters, PTCA balloons, and coronary stents among interventional cardiologists in Türkiye and explored whether these views varied according to selected practice characteristics.
Methods: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey between May and June 2020. The questionnaire was dis-tributed through professional e-mail lists and yielded 147 responses. All close-ended items were mandatory, and no missing responses were observed for the variables included in the primary quantitative analyses. Results are reported as n (%). Key proportions are accompanied by 95% Wilson confidence intervals. Exploratory subgroup comparisons used Fisher's exact test after prespecified category collapsing to limit sparse cells.
Results: Respondents came from all seven geographic regions of Türkiye. Of the respondents, 76/147 (51.7%) worked in training and research hospitals, and 61/147 (41.5%) reported a daily PCI volume of 5-10 cases. Low domestic-device use was common across all device classes and was most pronounced for coronary stents, for which 93/147 (63.3%) reported use in ≤20% of cases. Low stent satisfaction (≤20%) was reported by 66/147 (44.9%). For the future-use item, 111/147 physicians (75.5%, 95% CI 68.0-81.8) selected the response "I would use domestic products if quality were sufficient," and 29/147 (19.7%, 95% CI 14.1-26.9) selected "I actively prioritize domestic products." In an exploratory binary analysis, 137/147 respondents (93.2%, 95% CI 87.9-96.3) expressed at least some openness to greater domestic-device use. Per-ceived import dependency above 75% was reported by 91/147 (61.9%, 95% CI 53.8-69.4). Supportive future attitudes were more frequent among physicians with >10 years in specialist practice than among those with ≤10 years (98.6% vs. 88.3%, p=0.019). No clear association was found with institution type, academic title, or PCI volume.
Conclusion: In this 2020 physician sample, domestically manufactured coronary devices were used infrequently and were rated modestly, especially in the stent category. At the same time, future resistance was not absolute: most respondents indicated willingness to increase use if quality standards were met. The pattern is consistent with a quality-trust gap rather than categorical rejection. The findings remain useful as a pre-acceleration baseline, but they should be interpreted in light of self-reporting, non-response bias, and the time gap between data collection and submission.
Methods: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey between May and June 2020. The questionnaire was dis-tributed through professional e-mail lists and yielded 147 responses. All close-ended items were mandatory, and no missing responses were observed for the variables included in the primary quantitative analyses. Results are reported as n (%). Key proportions are accompanied by 95% Wilson confidence intervals. Exploratory subgroup comparisons used Fisher's exact test after prespecified category collapsing to limit sparse cells.
Results: Respondents came from all seven geographic regions of Türkiye. Of the respondents, 76/147 (51.7%) worked in training and research hospitals, and 61/147 (41.5%) reported a daily PCI volume of 5-10 cases. Low domestic-device use was common across all device classes and was most pronounced for coronary stents, for which 93/147 (63.3%) reported use in ≤20% of cases. Low stent satisfaction (≤20%) was reported by 66/147 (44.9%). For the future-use item, 111/147 physicians (75.5%, 95% CI 68.0-81.8) selected the response "I would use domestic products if quality were sufficient," and 29/147 (19.7%, 95% CI 14.1-26.9) selected "I actively prioritize domestic products." In an exploratory binary analysis, 137/147 respondents (93.2%, 95% CI 87.9-96.3) expressed at least some openness to greater domestic-device use. Per-ceived import dependency above 75% was reported by 91/147 (61.9%, 95% CI 53.8-69.4). Supportive future attitudes were more frequent among physicians with >10 years in specialist practice than among those with ≤10 years (98.6% vs. 88.3%, p=0.019). No clear association was found with institution type, academic title, or PCI volume.
Conclusion: In this 2020 physician sample, domestically manufactured coronary devices were used infrequently and were rated modestly, especially in the stent category. At the same time, future resistance was not absolute: most respondents indicated willingness to increase use if quality standards were met. The pattern is consistent with a quality-trust gap rather than categorical rejection. The findings remain useful as a pre-acceleration baseline, but they should be interpreted in light of self-reporting, non-response bias, and the time gap between data collection and submission.
Keywords: Interventional cardiology, coronary stents, medical devices, domestic manufacturing, physician survey, Tür-kiye, health services research
