Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a chatbot based on a large language model that has gained public interest since its release in November 2022. This systematic review examines the current literature on the potential applications of ChatGPT in cardiology. A systematic literature search was conducted to retrieve all publications on ChatGPT in PubMed, Scopus, MedRxiv, and the Cochrane Library published on or before September 30, 2023. Search terms relating to ChatGPT and cardiology were used. Publications without relevance to ChatGPT and cardiology were excluded. The included publications were divided into cohorts. Cohort A examined ChatGPT\'s role in improving patient health literacy. Cohort B explored ChatGPT\'s role in clinical care. Cohort C examined ChatGPT\'s role in future literature and research. Cohort D included case reports that used ChatGPT. A total of 115 publications were found across all databases. Twenty-four publications met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Cohort A-C included a total of 14 records comprised of editorials/letters to the editor (29%), research letters/correspondence (21%), review papers (21%), observational studies (7%), research studies (7%), and short reports (7%). Cohort D included 10 case reports. No relevant systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, or randomized controlled trials were identified in the search.  Based on this review of the literature, ChatGPT has the potential to enhance patient education, support clinicians providing clinical care, and enhance the development of future literature. However, further studies are needed to understand the potential applications of ChatGPT in cardiology and to address ethical concerns regarding the delivery of medical advice and the authoring of manuscripts.

This year marks the 20th birthday of the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing (EJCN). The official journal of the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professionals, is now recognized as one of the leading nursing and allied professional journals.
This article reflects on the developments and impact of the journal over its 20-year lifespan.
We present a descriptive account of the journal from inception (2002) until present day (2021), using data provided by the EJCN editorial office and extracted from published and available information. In the last 20 years, the EJCN has published 20 volumes, 106 issues, and 1320 papers from 79 countries. The volume and quality of papers has been consistently increasing, culminating in a 2020 impact factor of 3.908, the highest in its history, ranking second for nursing science. Papers are predominantly patient focused with a range of research methods that cover an extensive range of cardiovascular conditions. Authors who contributed to the first issue continued their contribution; 293 articles in total.
The EJCN has evolved into a leading journal of cardiovascular care. As the journal enters its next era, with a new Editor-in-Chief, it is appropriate to have reflected on the phenomenal contribution of the outgoing Editor-in-Chief, and the editorial team, over the last 20 years.

OBJECTIVE: To assess randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of nurse practitioner-led cardiovascular care.
BACKGROUND: Systematic review of nurse practitioner-led care in patients with cardiovascular disease has not been completed.
METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and ProQuest were systematically searched for studies published between January 2007 - June 2017.
METHODS: Cochrane methodology was used for risk of bias, data extraction and meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS: Out of 605 articles, five articles met the inclusion criteria. There was no statistical difference between nurse practitioner-led care and usual care for 30-day readmissions, health-related quality of life and length of stay. A 12% reduction in Framingham risk score was identified.
CONCLUSIONS: There are a few randomized control trials assessing nurse practitioner-led cardiovascular care.
CONCLUSIONS: Low to moderate quality evidence was identified with no statistically significant associated outcomes of care. Nurse practitioner roles need to be supported to conduct and publish high-quality research.
目的: 在于评估随机对照试验,从而评估执业护士主导型护理心血管护理的影响。 背景: 尚未完成对心血管疾病患者进行执业护士主导型护理的系统综述。 设计: 系统综述和荟萃分析。 资料来源: 在 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)、Medline、Embase、CINAHL、Web of Science、Scopus和ProQuest上系统地搜索了2007年1月至2017年6月间发表的研究。 综述方法: Cochrane方法学用于偏倚风险、数据提取和荟萃分析。证据质量的评估采用了GRADE(Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation)法。 结果: 在605篇文章中,有5篇符合纳入标准。执业护士主导型护理和30天再度入院的常规护理、健康相关生活质量和住院天数之间没有统计学差异。确定Framingham 风险评分降低了12%。 结论: 有一些随机对照试验评估了执业护士主导型心血管护理。 影响: 确定了低等至中等质量的证据,没有统计学意义的相关护理结果。需要支持执业护士的角色,从而开展和发布高质量研究。.

There is a general understanding that socioeconomically disadvantaged people are also disadvantaged with respect to their access to NHS care. Insofar as considerable NHS funding has been targeted at deprived areas, it is important to better understand whether and why socioeconomic variations in access and utilisation exist. Exploring this question with reference to cardiovascular care, our aims were to synthesise and evaluate evidence relating to access to and/or use of English NHS services around (i) different points on the care pathway (i.e. presentation, primary management and specialist management) and (ii) different dimensions of inequality (socioeconomic, age- and gender-related, ethnic or geographical). Restricting our search period from 2004 to 2016, we were concerned to examine whether, compared to earlier research, there has been a change in the focus of research examining inequalities in cardiac care and whether the pro-rich bias reported in the late 1990s and early 2000s still applies today. We conducted a scoping study drawing on Arksey & O\'Malley\'s framework. A total of 174 studies were included in the review and appraised for methodological quality. Although, in the past decade, there has been a shift in research focus away from gender and age inequalities in access/use and towards socioeconomic status and ethnicity, evidence that deprived people are less likely to access and use cardiovascular care is very contradictory. Patterns of use appear to vary by ethnicity; South Asian populations enjoying higher access, black populations lower. By contrast, female gender and older age are consistently associated with inequity in cardiovascular care. The degree of geographical variation in access/use is also striking. Finally, evidence of inequality increases with stage on the care pathway, which may indicate that barriers to access arise from the way in which health professionals are adjudicating health needs rather than a failure to seek help in the first place.