UNASSIGNED: The reliability of interpretation of coronary angiography as a diagnostic tool was investigated. Furthermore, the impact of interobserver variability of coronary lesions on clinical decision-making was assessed. One of our motivations to do this research was the research gaps and our aim to have up-to-date information regarding interobserver variability among different cardiologists.
UNASSIGNED: Our objective was to quantify interobserver variability among cardiologists who have seen angiograms independently. Disagreement among cardiologists in the visual assessment of invasive coronary angiography of coronary artery stenosis is not uncommon in previous studies. Three cardiologists with extensive experience in coronary angiography, including the primary cardiologist of each patient, read the angiograms of 200 patients from Toronto General Hospital independently.
UNASSIGNED: Our research showed the mean agreement among all participating observers was 77.4%; therefore, the interobserver variability of coronary angiography interpretation was 22.6%.
UNASSIGNED: Coronary angiography is still the gold-standard technique for guidance regarding coronary lesions. Sometimes, coronary angiography results in underestimation or overestimation of a lesion\'s functional severity. Interobserver variability should also be considered when interpreting the severity of coronary stenoses via invasive coronary angiography. This research shows that interobserver variability regarding coronary angiograms is still present (22.6%).
Plain language summary: The gold-standard method for diagnosing coronary stenosis, invasive coronary angiography has some challenges too. One of these challenges has been the difference among various cardiologists regarding determination of severity of each coronary stenosis. In this study, we focused on differences in interobserver variability in coronary angiography interpretation. Three cardiologists who were experienced in coronary angiography read each patient’s coronary angiogram separately. Overall, 200 patients with a history of angiography at Toronto General Hospital were selected randomly. The research showed that overall agreement among all participating cardiologists with regard to the reading of coronary angiograms was 77.4%. In other words, interobserver variability of 22.6% was seen among the readers.

BACKGROUND: Having knowledge of the dental procedures that necessitate endocarditis prophylaxis is of high importance. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine the knowledge level and attitudes of general medical and dental practitioners, dental specialists, and cardiologists in Tehran and Hamadan about endocarditis.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was carried out on 420 general medical and dental practitioners, dental specialists, and cardiologists in Tehran and Hamadan provinces in 2015. The questionnaire used in this research consisted of three parts as follows: part one: information on cardiac diseases; part two: dental procedures requiring endocarditis prophylaxis; part three: antibiotic diet in endocarditis prophylaxis. Independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, and chi-square tests were conducted to analyze the data. All the analyses were performed in SPSS version 16.
RESULTS: The results showed that 86.7 had a relatively favorable and 10.5% of subjects had a favorable level of knowledge about endocarditis. Also, 58.6% of subjects had a poor attitude toward endocarditis prophylaxis. There was a significant relationship between knowledge and attitude, age, gender, and work experience (P < 0.001). There was a significant relationship between knowledge and attitude, and job groups; dental specialists had a more favorable knowledge and positive attitude than others (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: We recommended developing more practical training programs in dental schools on cardiac diseases, and dental procedures requiring endocarditis prophylaxis and antibiotic diets.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent and trends of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies to cardiologists board-certified by the Japanese Circulation Society.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis study using data from a publicly available database.
METHODS: The study focused on payments to cardiologists in Japan.
METHODS: All 15 048 cardiologists who were board-certified by the Japanese Circulation Society as of 2021.
METHODS: The primary outcome was the extent of personal payments to cardiologists in 2016-19. Secondary outcomes included the analysis of trends in these payments over the same period.
RESULTS: Of all 15 048 board-certified cardiologists, 9858 (65.5%) received personal payments totaling $112 934 503 entailing 165 013 transactions in 2016-19. The median payment per cardiologist was $2947 (IQR, $1022-$8787), with a mean of $11 456 (SD, $35 876). The Gini Index was 0.840, indicating a high concentration of payments to a small number of cardiologists. The top 1%, 5% and 10% of cardiologists received 31.6%, 59.4% and 73.5% of all payments, respectively. There were no significant trends in the number of cardiologists receiving payments or number of payments per cardiologist during the study period.
CONCLUSIONS: More than 65% of Japanese cardiologists received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies over the 4-year study period. Although the payment amount was relatively small for the majority of cardiologists, a small number of cardiologists received the vast majority of the payments.

Patients with peripheral arterial disease have an increased risk of developing cardiovascular complications in the postoperative period of arterial surgeries known as Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE), which includes acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, malignant arrhythmias, and stroke. The preoperative evaluation aims to reduce mortality and the risk of MACE. However, there is no standardized approach to performing them. The aim of this study was to compare the preoperative evaluation conducted by general practitioners with those performed by cardiologists.
This is a retrospective analysis of medical records of patients who underwent elective arterial surgeries from January 2016 to December 2020 at a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. The authors compared the preoperative evaluation of these patients according to the initial evaluator (general practitioners vs. cardiologists), assessing patients\' clinical factors, mortality, postoperative MACE incidence, rate of requested non-invasive stratification tests, length of hospital stay, among others.
281 patients were evaluated: 169 assessed by cardiologists and 112 by general practitioners. Cardiologists requested more non-invasive stratification tests (40.8%) compared to general practitioners (9%) (p < 0.001), with no impact on mortality (8.8% versus 10.7%; p = 0.609) and postoperative MACE incidence (10.6% versus 6.2%; p = 0.209). The total length of hospital stay was longer in the cardiologist group (17.27 versus 11.79 days; p < 0.001).
The increased request for exams didn\'t have a significant impact on mortality and postoperative MACE incidence, but prolonged the total length of hospital stay. Health managers should consider these findings and ensure appropriate utilization of human and financial resources.

With the increasing number of cardiac conduction devices (CCDs) insertions with various complexities in recent decades, it is crucial for clinicians (especially internal medicine residents and cardiologists) to have an up-to-date review of the current devices on chest radiograph. Chest X-ray remains the most cost-effective and accessible imaging modality to assess the device position and its associated complications, not only immediately after insertion but also during the follow-up visit as outpatient. Various types of CCDs such as permanent pacemaker, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT, CRT with defibrillation or pacing) with their appearances on chest radiograph and possible complications with a step-by-step guide to how to assess are discussed in this article.

BACKGROUND: In contemporary clinical practice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) is increasingly becoming a multispecialty field, joining operators of various training backgrounds, which bring forth their unique expertise, patient management philosophies, and procedural preferences. The best practices and approaches, however, are still debated. Therefore, real-world insights on different operator preferences and related outcomes are of utmost value, yet still rather scarce in the available literature.
METHODS: Using the data collected in the ROADSAVER observational, European multicenter CAS study, a prespecified comparative analysis evaluating the impact of the operator\'s specialization was performed. We used major adverse event (MAE) rate at 30-day follow-up, defined as the cumulative incidence of any death or stroke, and its components as outcome measures.
RESULTS: A total of 1965 procedures were analyzed; almost half 878 (44.7%) were performed by radiologists (interventional/neuro), 717 (36.5%) by cardiologists or angiologists, and 370 (18.8%) by surgeons (vascular/neuro). Patients treated by surgeons were the oldest (72.9±8.5), while radiologists treated most symptomatic patients (58.1%) and more often used radial access (37.2%). The 30-day MAE incidence achieved by cardiologists/angiologists was 2.0%, radiologists 2.5%, and surgeons 1.9%; the observed differences in rates were statistically not-significant (P=0.7027), even when adjusted for baseline patient/lesion and procedural disparities across groups. The corresponding incidence rates for death from any cause were 1.0%, 0.8%, and 0.3%, P=0.4880, and for any stroke: 1.4%, 2.3%, and 1.9%, P=0.4477, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the disparities in patient selection and procedural preferences, the outcomes achieved by different specialties in real-world, contemporary CAS practice remain similar when using modern devices and techniques.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Professional organizations point to the underutilization of genetic testing in cardiology as a lack of genetic literacy. Yet, few studies have examined the interpretive work required from clinicians to make results clinically actionable. Based on interviews with twenty-nine cardiologists, we find that although genetic testing may provide epistemic closure by substantiating a suspected diagnosis at the molecular level, genetic testing often disrupted cardiologists\' diagnostic inferential processes. These epistemic disruptions were not intrinsic to a particular genetic result type (positive, negative, or VUS), but arose from reconciling genetic results with the patient\'s symptoms and medical and family history. Drawing from the sociology of diagnosis and professional expertise, we examine how cardiologists resolved epistemic disruptions by either sidelining or repairing genetic test results. However, such attempts at making genetic test results actionable for diagnosis may not resolve epistemic disruptions. We argue that rather than clinicians lacking individual literacy, the limited uptake of genetic test results reflects a collective problem of gaps in the genetic knowledge base that leads to medical agnosis, or an inability to make sense of a patient\'s symptoms uncertainty, rather than diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Training in clinical cardiac electrophysiology (CCEP) involves the development of catheter handling skills to safely deliver effective treatment. Objective data from analysis of ablation data for evaluating trainee of CCEP procedures has not previously been possible. Using the artificial intelligence cloud-based system (CARTONET), we assessed the impact of trainee progress through ablation procedural quality.
METHODS: Lesion- and procedure-level data from all de novo atrial fibrillation (AF) and cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablations involving first-year (Y1) or second-year (Y2) fellows across a full year of fellowship was curated within Cartonet. Lesions were automatically assigned to anatomic locations.
RESULTS: Lesion characteristics, including contact force, catheter stability, impedance drop, ablation index value, and interlesion time/distance were similar over each training year. Anatomic location and supervising operator significantly affected catheter stability. The proportion of lesion sets delivered independently and of lesions delivered by the trainee increased steadily from the first quartile of Y1 to the last quartile of Y2. Trainee perception of difficult regions did not correspond to objective measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Objective ablation data from Cartonet showed that the progression of trainees through CCEP training does not impact lesion-level measures of treatment efficacy (i.e., catheter stability, impedance drop). Data demonstrates increasing independence over a training fellowship. Analyses like these could be useful to inform individualized training programs and to track trainee\'s progress. It may also be a useful quality assurance tool for ensuring ongoing consistency of treatment delivered within training institutions.