Search

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as a clinical syndrome with symptoms and/or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We also propose revised stages of HF as: At risk for HF (Stage A), Pre-HF (Stage B), Symptomatic HF (Stage C) and Advanced HF (Stage D). Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This includes HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): symptomatic HF with LVEF ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF): symptomatic HF with LVEF 41-49%; HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): symptomatic HF with LVEF ≥50%; and HF with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF): symptomatic HF with a baseline LVEF ≤40%, a ≥10 point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF > 40%., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology and Elsevier, Inc.)

A new guideline for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death has been published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Beside the 2017 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) guideline and the 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CCS/CHRS) position statement, this guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice. As these recommendations are periodically updated integrating the latest scientific evidence, there are similarities in many aspects. Nevertheless, notable differences in the recommendations can be found resulting from different scopes and publication years, differences in data selection, interpretation, and weighing, and regional factors such as differing drug availability. The aim of this paper is to compare specific recommendations to identify differences while acknowledging the commonalities and to provide an overview of the status of current recommendations with a special emphasis on gaps in evidence and future directions of research. Overall, the recent ESC guideline places a greater emphasis on the value of cardiac magnetic resonance, genetic testing in cardiomyopathies and arrhythmia syndromes, and the use of risk calculators for risk stratification. Further significant differences can be found regarding diagnostic criteria for genetic arrhythmia syndromes, the management of hemodynamically well-tolerated ventricular tachycardia, and primary preventive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Eckardt has received lecture fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, Biotronik, Sanofi Aventis, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Zeppenfeld has received research funding from Biosense Webster (research electrophysiology). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and iodinated contrast shortage may have affected interventional cardiology (IC) fellowship training., Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the educational experience of first-year IC fellows in the United States and Canada., Methods: A 59-question online survey was conducted among 2021-2022 first-year IC fellows in the United States and Canada., Results: Of the 360 IC fellows invited to participate, 111 (31%) responded; 95% were from the United States, and 79% were men. Participants were mostly from university programs (70%), spent 61 to 70 hours/week in the hospital, and had an annual percutaneous coronary intervention case number of <200 (5%), 200 to 249 (8%), 250 to 349 (33%), 350 to 499 (39%), 500 to 699 (12%), or ≥700 (3%). For femoral access, a micropuncture needle was used regularly by 89% and ultrasound-guided puncture by 81%, and 43% used vascular closure devices in most cases (>80%). Intravascular ultrasound was performed and interpreted very comfortably by 62% and optical coherence tomography (OCT) by 32%, and 20% did not have access to OCT. Approximately one-third felt very comfortable performing various atherectomy techniques. Covered stents, fat embolization, and coil embolization were used very comfortably by 14%, 4%, and 3%, respectively. Embolic protection devices were used very comfortably by 11% to 24% of IC fellows. Almost one-quarter of fellows (24%) were warned about their high radiation exposure. Eighty-four percent considered IC fellowship somewhat or very stressful, and 16% reported inadequate psychological support., Conclusions: This survey highlights opportunities for improvement with regard to the use of intravascular imaging, atherectomy techniques, complication prevention and management strategies, radiation awareness and mitigation, and psychological support., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors are grateful for the philanthropic support of their generous anonymous donors and the philanthropic support of Drs Mary Ann and Donald A. Sens, Mrs Diane and Dr Cline Hickok, Mrs Wilma and Mr Dale Johnson, the Mrs Charlotte and Mr Jerry Golinvaux Family Fund, the Roehl Family Foundation, and the Joseph Durda Foundation. The generous gifts of these donors to the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation’s Science Center for Coronary Artery Disease helped support this research project. Dr Azzalini has received honoraria from Teleflex, Abiomed, Asahi Intecc, Philips, GE Healthcare, Abbott Vascular, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr Sandoval previously served on the advisory boards for Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics without personal compensation; and has been a speaker without personal financial compensation for Abbott Diagnostics. Dr Brilakis has received consulting and speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, the American Heart Association (associate editor, Circulation), Amgen, Asahi Intecc, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, the Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), ControlRad, Cardiovascular Systems, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, Interventional Medical Device Solutions, InfraRedx, Medicure, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, and Teleflex; is an owner of Hippocrates; and is a shareholder in MHI Ventures and Cleerly Health. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A proper determination of the exercise intensity is important for the rehabilitation of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) since it affects the effectiveness and medical safety of exercise training. In 2013, the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC), together with the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation, published a position statement on aerobic exercise intensity assessment and prescription in cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR). Since this publication, many subsequent papers were published concerning the determination of the exercise intensity in CR, in which some controversies were revealed and some of the commonly applied concepts were further refined. Moreover, how to determine the exercise intensity during resistance training was not covered in this position paper. In light of these new findings, an update on how to determine the exercise intensity for patients with CVD is mandatory, both for aerobic and resistance exercises. In this EAPC position paper, it will be explained in detail which objective and subjective methods for CR exercise intensity determination exist for aerobic and resistance training, together with their (dis)advantages and practical applications., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Despite the increase in the number of female physicians across most specialties within cardiology, <10% of clinical cardiac electrophysiology (EP) fellows are women., Objectives: This study sought to determine the factors that influence fellows-in-training (FITs) to pursue EP as a career choice and whether this differs by gender., Methods: The authors conducted an online multiple-choice survey through the American College of Cardiology to assess the decision factors that influence FITs in the United States and Canada to pursue cardiovascular subspecialties., Results: A total of 933 (30.5%) FITs completed the survey; 129 anticipated specializing in EP, 259 in interventional cardiology (IC), and 545 in a different field or were unsure. A total of 1 in 7 (14%) FITs indicated an interest in EP. Of this group, more men chose EP than women (84% vs 16%; P < 0.001). The most important factor that influenced FITs to pursue EP was a strong interest in the field. Women were more likely to be influenced by having a female role model (P = 0.001) compared with men. After excluding FITs interested in IC, women who deselected EP were more likely than men to be influenced by greater interest in another field (P = 0.004), radiation concerns (P = 0.001), lack of female role models (P = 0.001), a perceived "old boys' club" culture (P = 0.001) and discrimination/harassment concerns (P = 0.001)., Conclusions: Women are more likely than men to be negatively influenced by many factors when it comes to pursuing EP as a career choice. Addressing those factors will help decrease the gender disparity in the field., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Abdulsalam was a second- and third-year fellow-in-training (FIT) in the Cardiovascular Fellowship Program at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska, during this study; she is currently a first-year FIT in the Cardiac Clinical Electrophysiology Fellowship Program at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington. Dr Killic was an FIT in the Interventional Cardiology Program at Brown University during this study; she is currently on the faculty at the University of Oregon Health and Science Center in Portland, Oregon. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Guidelines for the provision of echocardiography in Canada were jointly developed and published by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography in 2005. Since their publication, recognition of the importance of echocardiography to patient care has increased, along with the use of focused, point-of-care echocardiography by physicians of diverse clinical backgrounds and variable training. New guidelines for physician training and maintenance of competence in adult echocardiography were required to ensure that physicians providing either focused, point-of-care echocardiography or comprehensive echocardiography are appropriately trained and proficient in their use of echocardiography. In addition, revision of the guidelines was required to address technological advances and the desire to standardize echocardiography training across the country to facilitate the national recognition of a physician's expertise in echocardiography. This paper summarizes the new Guidelines for Physician Training and Maintenance of Competency in Adult Echocardiography, which are considerably more comprehensive than earlier guidelines and address many important issues not previously covered. These guidelines provide a blueprint for physician training despite different clinical backgrounds and help standardize physician training and training programs across the country. Adherence to the guidelines will ensure that physicians providing echocardiography have acquired sufficient expertise required for their specific practice. The document will also provide a framework for other national societies to standardize their training programs in echocardiography and will provide a benchmark by which competency in adult echocardiography may be measured., (Copyright © 2011 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This report describes a 1-year exchange between members of two pediatric cardiology centers: one in Canada and one in Australia. Five cardiologists participated in sequence, fully engaging in the activities of the host department. The motivation of the exchange was broadly educational including clinical experience, shared expertise, teaching, and research collaboration. Structured debriefing confirmed the value of the exchange. In addition to the experience of working in a different medical system, eight research papers were developed, with two research projects ongoing as well as subsequent exchanges of nursing and technical personnel. Interchange between two academic departments can add strength to both and allow development of new skills and research activity.

Health care report cards are gaining a high profile among policy makers, clinicians and the public, and are most well developed in the context of cardiac care. Although there are important ethical issues relevant to developing and implementing cardiac report cards, there currently is no explicit examination of these issues. As a consequence, outcomes researchers lack ethical guidance while designing and implementing cardiac report cards. This paper will examine four key ethical issues related to cardiac report cards: quality, informed consent, equity and legitimacy. Cardiac report cards may help improve the quality of cardiac care, help cardiac patients make informed decisions and guide interventions to enhance regional equity in cardiac care. To achieve these important goals, different types of report cards may be required. However, to achieve these goals, cardiac report cards must be legitimate. To push forward the report card initiative, a close relationship among stakeholders is encouraged, ie, among those developing cardiac report cards, those whom report cards evaluate and the intended audiences of report cards.