Search

Artificial intelligence has increasingly become an integral part of our daily activities. ChatGPT, a natural language processing technology developed by OpenAI, is widely used in various industries, including healthcare. The application of ChatGPT in healthcare is still evolving, with studies exploring its potential in clinical decision-making, patient education, workflow optimization, and scientific literature. ChatGPT could be exploited in the medical field to improve patient education and information, thus increasing compliance. ChatGPT could facilitate information exchange on major cardiovascular diseases, provide clinical decision support, and improve patient communication and education. It could assist the clinician in differential diagnosis, suggest appropriate imaging modalities, and optimize treatment plans based on evidence-based guidelines. However, it is unclear whether it will be possible to use ChatGPT for the management of patients who require rapid decisions. Indeed, many drawbacks are associated with the daily use of these technologies in the medical field, such as insufficient expertise in specialized fields and a lack of comprehension of the context in which it works. The pros and cons of its use have been explored in this review, which was not written with the help of ChatGPT., (Copyright © 2024 Italian Federation of Cardiology - I.F.C. All rights reserved.)

In recent years, significant advancements in radiofrequency ablation technology have notably enhanced arrhythmia treatment in cardiology. Technological advancements and increasing clinical adoption have made radiofrequency ablation a key therapy in improving life quality for patients with conditions like atrial fibrillation (AF). Consequently, there has been a marked increase in research output, underscoring the technology's significance and its potential in cardiology. Aims to comprehensively analyze cardiology's radiofrequency ablation research trends, identifying leading countries and institutions in international collaborations, key researchers' contributions, and evolving research hotspots. The study, based on the Web of Science Core Collection database, reviewed the literatures from 2004 to 2023. CiteSpace 6.2.R7 Basic was used for bibliometric analysis, which examined annual publication trends, international collaboration networks, key authors, leading research institutions, major journals, keyword co-occurrence and clustering trends. Analyzing 3423 relevant articles, this study reveals a consistent growth in cardiology radiofrequency ablation research since 2004. The analysis shows that the United States, Germany, and France hold central roles in the international collaboration network, with leading authors from premier US and European institutions. Keyword cluster analysis identifies "atrial flutter" and "ventricular tachycardia" as current research focal points. Cardiology radiofrequency ablation research shows a growth trend, led by the United States and European countries. Research hotspots are concentrated on the diverse applications of radiofrequency ablation technology and the treatment of AF. Future studies may increasingly focus on technological innovation and the deepening of clinical applications., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Bourque is a consultant for GE Healthcare. The other author reports no conflicts.

Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had worldwide repercussions for health care and research. In spring 2020, most non-COVID-19 research was halted, hindering research across the spectrum from laboratory-based experimental science to clinical research. Through the second half of 2020 and the first half of 2021, biomedical research, including cardiovascular science, only gradually restarted, with many restrictions on onsite activities, limited clinical research participation, and the challenges associated with working from home and caregiver responsibilities. Compounding these impediments, much of the global biomedical research infrastructure was redirected toward vaccine testing and deployment. This redirection of supply chains, personnel, and equipment has additionally hampered restoration of normal research activity. Transition to virtual interactions offset some of these limitations but did not adequately replace the need for scientific exchange and collaboration. Here, we outline key steps to reinvigorate biomedical research, including a call for increased support from the National Institutes of Health. We also call on academic institutions, publishers, reviewers, and supervisors to consider the impact of COVID-19 when assessing productivity, recognizing that the pandemic did not affect all equally. We identify trainees and junior investigators, especially those with caregiving roles, as most at risk of being lost from the biomedical workforce and identify steps to reduce the loss of these key investigators. Although the global pandemic highlighted the power of biomedical science to define, treat, and protect against threats to human health, significant investment in the biomedical workforce is required to maintain and promote well-being.

Multiple sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) have been shown to impart significant cardiovascular and kidney benefits, but are underused in clinical practice. Both SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA were first studied as glucose-lowering drugs, which may have impeded uptake by cardiologists in the wake of proven cardiovascular efficacy. Their significant effect on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, which are largely independent of glucose-lowering effects, must drive a broader use of these drugs. Cardiologists are 3 times more likely than endocrinologists to see patients with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, thus they are ideally positioned to share responsibility for SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA treatment with primary care providers. In order to increase adoption, SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA must be reframed as primarily cardiovascular and kidney disease risk-reducing agents with a side effect of glucose-lowering. Coordinated and multifaceted interventions engaging clinicians, patients, payers, professional societies, and health systems must be implemented to incentivize the adoption of these medications as part of routine cardiovascular and kidney care. Greater use of SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA will improve outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular and kidney disease.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has emerged as an accurate diagnostic technique for the evaluation of patients with cardiac disease in the majority of clinical settings, thanks to an established additional diagnostic and prognostic value. This document has been developed by a joined group of experts of the Italian Society of Cardiology (SIC) and Italian Society of Radiology (SIRM) to provide a summary about the current state of technology and clinical applications of CMR, to improve the clinical diagnostic pathways and to promote its inclusion in clinical practice. The writing committee consisted of members and experts of both societies in order to develop a more integrated approach in the field of cardiac imaging. This section 2 will cover myocarditis, pericardial disease, cardiomyopathies and valvular heart disease., (Copyright © 2021 Italian Federation of Cardiology - I.F.C. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose- Industry payments to physicians raise concerns regarding conflicts of interest that could impact patient care. We explored nonresearch and nonownership payments from industry to vascular neurologists to identify trends in compensation. Methods- Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology data, we explored financial relationships between industry and US vascular neurologists from 2013 to 2018. We analyzed payment characteristics, including payment categories, payment distribution among physicians, regional trends, and biomedical manufacturers. Furthermore, we analyzed the top 1% (by compensation) of vascular neurologists with detailed payment categories, their position, and their contribution to stroke guidelines. Results- The number of board certified vascular neurologist increased from 1169 in 2013 to 1746 in 2018. The total payments to vascular neurologist increased from $99 749 in 2013 to $1 032 302 in 2018. During the study period, 16% to 17% of vascular neurologists received industry payments. Total payments from industry and mean physician payments increased yearly over this period, with consulting fee (31.1%) and compensation for services other than consulting (30.7%) being the highest paid categories. The top 10 manufacturers made the majority of the payments, and the top 10 products changed from drug or biological products to devices. Physicians from south region of the United States received the highest total payment (38.72%), which steadily increased. Payments to top 1% vascular neurologists increased from 64% to 79% over the period as payments became less evenly distributed. Among the top 1%, 42% specialized in neuro intervention, 11% contributed to American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, and around 75% were key leaders in the field. Conclusions- A small proportion of US vascular neurologists consistently received the majority of industry payments, the value of which grew over the study period. Only 11% of the top 1% receiving industry payments have authored American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, but ≈75% seem to be key leaders in the field. Whether this influences clinical practice and behavior requires further investigation.

Qualitative research offers unique opportunities to contribute to cardiovascular outcomes research. Despite the growth in qualitative research over the last decade, outcomes investigators in cardiology still have relatively little guidance on when and how best to implement these methods in their investigations, leaving the full potential of these methods unrealized. We offer a contemporary look at qualitative methods, including publication trends of qualitative studies in cardiology journals from 1998 to 2018, novel emerging data collection and analytic methods, and current use and examples of cardiovascular outcomes research that apply qualitative methods such as user-centered design, preimplementation evaluation, implementation evaluation, effectiveness evaluation, and policy analysis.

Recent developments in cancer therapeutics have improved outcomes but have also been associated with cardiovascular complications. Therapies harnessing the immune system have been associated with an immune-mediated myocardial injury described as myocarditis. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are one such therapy with an increasing number of case and cohort reports describing a clinical syndrome of immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated myocarditis. Although the full spectrum of immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated cardiovascular disease still needs to be fully defined, described cases of myocarditis range from syndromes with mild signs and symptoms to fatal events. These observations in the clinical setting stand in contrast to outcomes from randomized clinical trials in which myocarditis is a rare event that is investigator reported and lacking in a specific case definition. The complexities associated with diagnosis, as well as the heterogeneous clinical presentation of immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated myocarditis, have made ascertainment and identification of myocarditis with high specificity challenging in clinical trials and other data sets, limiting the ability to better understand the incidence, outcomes, and predictors of these rare events. Therefore, establishing a uniform definition of myocarditis for application in clinical trials of cancer immunotherapies will enable greater understanding of these events. We propose an operational definition of cancer therapy-associated myocarditis that may facilitate case ascertainment and report and therefore may enhance the understanding of the incidence, outcomes, and risk factors of this novel clinical syndrome., Competing Interests: Dr Bonaca reports consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck as well as research funding from AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr Salem was supported by Cancer ITMO of the French National Alliance for Life and Health Sciences (AVIESAN): “Plan Cancer 2014 to 2019”. Dr Wiviott reports ARENA, AstraZeneca, Aegerion, Allergan, Angelmed, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Clinical Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Icon Clinical, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Servier, St Jude Medical, Xoma, and research grants from Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr Wiviott’s spouse is an employee of Merck Research Laboratories. Dr Ederhy has received consultant and lecture fees from Eli Lilly, Daiichy-Sankyo, Celgene, Pfizer, EspeRare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Philips Healthcare, Bayer, Novartis, Amgen, and Ipsen. Dr Cohen has received consultant and lecture fees from, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharma, BMS-Pfizer alliance, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Novartis, and has received research grants from ARS, RESICARD, Bayer, and Boehringer-Ingelheim. Dr Di Carli has received consulting honoraria from Sanofi and General Electric and research grants from SpectrumDynamics. Dr Choueiri has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc, Exelixis, Genentech, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Ipsen and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc., Exelixis, Genentech, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, and Ipsen. Dr Kumbhani has received an honoraria from American College of Cardiology. Dr Heinzrling has been a principal investigator in clinical studies for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Curevac, and Novartis; had received consultancy and speaker fees from from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche, Amgen, Novartis, Curevac, and Pierre Fabre. Dr Lyon has received speaker, advisory board or consultancy fees and/or research grants from Pfizer, Novartis, Servier, Amgen, Clinigen Group, Takeda, Roche, Eli Lily, Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Johnson has served on an advisory board for Array, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genoptix, Incyte, Merck, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Incyte. Dr Moslehi has served on an advisory board for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Regeneron, and Myokardia and received research funding from Pfizer and Novartis. The other authors report no conflicts., (© 2019 American Heart Association, Inc.)

As we commemorate the 70 th Anniversary of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and celebrate important milestones that have been achieved by the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences (DCVS), it is imperative that DCVS and the Extramural Research community at-large continue to address critical public health challenges that persist within the area of Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD). The NHLBI's Strategic Vision, developed with extensive input from the extramural research community and published in 2016, included overarching goals and strategic objectives that serve to provide a general blueprint for sustaining the legacy of the Institute by leveraging opportunities in emerging scientific areas (e.g., regenerative medicine, omics technology, data science, precision medicine, and mobile health), finding new ways to address enduring challenges (e.g., social determinants of health, health inequities, prevention, and health promotion), and training the next generation of heart, lung, blood, and sleep researchers. DCVS has developed a strategic vision implementation plan to provide a cardiovascular framing for the pursuit of the Institute's overarching goals and strategic objectives garnered from the input of the broader NHLBI community. This plan highlights six scientific focus areas that demonstrate a cross-cutting and multifaceted approach to addressing cardiovascular sciences, including 1) addressing social determinants of cardiovascular health (CVH) and health inequities, 2) enhancing resilience, 3) promoting CVH and preventing CVD Across the lifespan, 4) eliminating hypertension-related CVD, 5) reducing the burden of heart failure, and 6) preventing vascular dementia. These priorities will guide our efforts in Institute-driven activities in the coming years but will not exclude development of other novel ideas or the support of investigator-initiated grant awards. The DCVS Strategic Vision implementation plan is a living document that will evolve with iterative dialogue with the NHLBI community and adapt as the dynamic scientific landscape changes to seize emerging opportunities., Competing Interests: Disclosures: None of the authors have relationships with industry or conflicts of interest to disclose. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; or the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

: Despite cardiovascular disease (CVD) now being the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in women worldwide, this problem is still dramatically underestimated. The disparities in diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis between men and women are rooted in basic biological differences, as well as in the complex interactions of cultural and socioeconomic problems. This is why an up-to-date and gender-based revision of current guidelines is highly desirable.

Background: Despite advances in the representation of women in medical training, women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology, academic medicine, and more specifically, in senior positions within academic medicine. Identifying disparities in research productivity and acknowledgment can highlight barriers to female representation in academic cardiology leadership, as well as in academic promotion., Methods and Results: This bibliometric analysis included all authors of original research articles between 1980 and 2017 from 3 high-impact cardiology journals ( Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal). We identified 71 345 unique authors of 55 085 primary research articles during our study period. Female authors accounted for 33.1% of all authors; however, they represented only 26.7% of first authors and 19.7% of senior authors. Looking at the most prolific authors within this time period, female authors were not well represented, accounting for only 5% of the top 100 authors. Articles with a female senior author had more female middle authors than articles with a male senior author (mean 1.41 versus 0.97, P<0.001) and were more likely to have a female first author (0.37 versus 0.18, P<0.001). There was an increased representation of female authors as first and senior authors compared with the total number of articles with female authors over time ( P<0.001 for trend); however, female senior authorship rates continued to lag first authorship rates., Conclusions: Using a large database of published manuscripts, we found that female representation in published cardiology research has increased over the past 4 decades. However, women continue to be not well represented as first authors, senior authors, and in the number of publications. When women were senior authors, they published more articles with female first authors and had more female authors. In addition to recruiting more women into the field of cardiology, additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to academic advancement for female physician-scientists.

Background: Patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥190 mg/dL are at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events. Treatment guidelines recommend intensive treatment in these patients. Variation in the use of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) in these patients in a national sample of cardiology practices is not known., Methods and Results: Using data from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry, we assessed the proportion of patients with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL (n=49 447) receiving statin, high-intensity statin, LLT associated with ≥50% LDL-C lowering, ezetimibe, or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor between January 2013 and December 2016. We assessed practice-level rates and variation in LLT use using median rate ratio (MRR) adjusted for patient and practice characteristics. MRRs represent the likelihood that 2 random practices would differ in treatment of identical patients with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL. The proportion of patients receiving a statin, high-intensity statin, LLT associated with ≥50% LDL-C reduction, ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitor were 58.5%, 31.9%, 34.6%, 8.5%, and 1.5%, respectively. Median practice-level rates and adjusted MRR for statin (56% [interquartile range, 47.3%-64.8%]; MRR, 1.20 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.23]), high-intensity statin (30.2% [interquartile range, 12.1%-41.1%]; MRR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.12-2.51]), LLT with ≥50% LDL-C lowering (31.8% [interquartile range, 15.3%-45.5%]; MRR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.95-2.28]), ezetimibe (5.8% [interquartile range, 2.8%-9.8%]; MRR, 2.42 [95% CI, 2.21-2.63]), and PCSK9 inhibitors (0.16% [interquartile range, 0%-1.9%]; MRR, 2.38 [95% CI, 2.04-2.72]) indicated significant gaps and >200% variation in receipt of several of these medications for patients across practices. Among those without concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, even larger treatment gaps were noted (proportion of patients on a statin, high-intensity statin, LLT with ≥50% LDL-C reduction, ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitor were 50.8%, 25.25%, 26.8%, 4.9%, and 0.74%, respectively)., Conclusions: Evidence-based LLT use remains low among patients with elevated LDL-C with significant variation in care. System-level interventions are needed to address these gaps and reduce variation in care of these high-risk patients., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

In the digital age of cardiovascular medicine, the rate of biomedical discovery can be greatly accelerated by the guidance and resources required to unearth potential collections of knowledge. A unified computational platform leverages metadata to not only provide direction but also empower researchers to mine a wealth of biomedical information and forge novel mechanistic insights. This review takes the opportunity to present an overview of the cloud-based computational environment, including the functional roles of metadata, the architecture schema of indexing and search, and the practical scenarios of machine learning-supported molecular signature extraction. By introducing several established resources and state-of-the-art workflows, we share with our readers a broadly defined informatics framework to phenotype cardiovascular health and disease., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: We evaluated the prognosis of deferred and revascularized coronary stenoses after fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement to assess its revascularization threshold in clinical practice., Methods: The IRIS-FFR registry (Interventional Cardiology Research In-cooperation Society Fractional Flow Reserve) prospectively enrolled 5846 patients with ≥1coronary lesion with FFR measurement. Revascularization was deferred in 6468 lesions and performed in 2165 lesions after FFR assessment. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization) at a median follow-up of 1.9 years and analyzed on a per-lesion basis. A marginal Cox model accounted for correlated data in patients with multiple lesions, and a model to predict per-lesion outcomes was adjusted for confounding factors., Results: For deferred lesions, the risk of major adverse cardiac events demonstrated a significant, inverse relationship with FFR (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.08; P <0.001). However, this relationship was not observed in revascularized lesions (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.02; P =0.70). For lesions with FFR ≥0.76, the risk of major adverse cardiac events was not significantly different between deferred and revascularized lesions. Conversely, in lesions with FFR ≤0.75, the risk of major adverse cardiac events was significantly lower in revascularized lesions than in deferred lesions (for FFR 0.71-0.75, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.89; P =0.021; for FFR ≤0.70, adjusted hazard ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84; P =0.012)., Conclusions: This large, prospective registry showed that the FFR value was linearly associated with the risk of cardiac events in deferred lesions. In addition, revascularization for coronary artery stenosis with a low FFR (≤0.75) was associated with better outcomes than the deferral, whereas for a stenosis with a high FFR (≥0.76), medical treatment would be a reasonable and safe treatment strategy., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01366404., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)