Antero-lateral vs. antero-posterior electrode position for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the success of antero-lateral vs. antero-posterior electrode position for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, due to small sample size and conflicting results of these RCTs, the optimal electrode positioning for successful cardioversion remains uncertain. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted. Outcomes of interest included overall success of cardioversion with restoration of sinus rhythm, 1st shock success, 2nd shock success, mean shock energy required for successful cardioversion, mean number of shocks required for successful cardioversion, success of cardioversion at high energy (> 150 J) and success of cardioversion at low energy (< 150 J). Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs comprising 2445 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference between two cardioversion approaches in the overall success of cardioversion (RR 1.02; 95% CI [0.97-1.06]; p = 0.43), first shock success (RR 1.14; 95% CI [0.99-1.32]), second shock success (RR 1.08; 95% CI [0.94-1.23]), mean shock energy required (mean difference 6.49; 95% CI [-17.33-30.31], success at high energy > 150 J (RR 1.02; 95% CI [0.92-1.14] and success at low energy < 150 J (RR 1.09; 95% CI [0.97-1.22]). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of RCTs shows no significant difference in the success of cardioversion between antero-lateral vs. antero-posterior electrode position for cardioversion of AF. Large well-conducted and adequately powered randomized clinical trials are needed to definitively address this question.

Physician Wellness in Academic Cardiovascular Medicine: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Academic medicine as a practice model provides unique benefits to society. Clinical care remains an important part of the academic mission; however, equally important are the educational and research missions. More specifically, the sustainability of health care in the United States relies on an educated and expertly trained physician workforce directly provided by academic medicine models. Similarly, the research charge to deliver innovation and discovery to improve health care and to cure disease is key to academic missions. Therefore, to support and promote the growth and sustainability of academic medicine, attracting and engaging top talent from fellows in training and early career faculty is of vital importance. However, as the health care needs of the nation have risen, clinicians have experienced unprecedented demand, and individual wellness and burnout have been examined more closely. Here, we provide a close look at the unique drivers of burnout in academic cardiovascular medicine and propose system-level and personal interventions to support individual wellness in this model.

Perceptions on Diversity in Cardiology: A Survey of Cardiology Fellowship Training Program Directors.

Background The lack of diversity in the cardiovascular physician workforce is thought to be an important driver of racial and sex disparities in cardiac care. Cardiology fellowship program directors play a critical role in shaping the cardiology workforce. Methods and Results To assess program directors' perceptions about diversity and barriers to enhancing diversity, the authors conducted a survey of 513 fellowship program directors or associate directors from 193 unique adult cardiology fellowship training programs. The response rate was 21% of all individuals (110/513) representing 57% of US general adult cardiology training programs (110/193). While 69% of respondents endorsed the belief that diversity is a driver of excellence in health care, only 26% could quote 1 to 2 references to support this statement. Sixty-three percent of respondents agreed that "our program is diverse already so diversity does not need to be increased." Only 6% of respondents listed diversity as a top 3 priority when creating the cardiovascular fellowship rank list. Conclusions These findings suggest that while program directors generally believe that diversity enhances quality, they are less familiar with the literature that supports that contention and they may not share a unified definition of "diversity." This may result in diversity enhancement having a low priority. The authors propose several strategies to engage fellowship training program directors in efforts to diversify cardiology fellowship training programs.

Landscape of Mentorship and its Effects on Success in Cardiology.

The effects of mentorship on measurable outcomes of success and the aspects of mentorship that are most valuable in promoting the careers of cardiologists are unclear. To address this, we conducted a large-scale survey of cardiologists in a real-world setting. We identified factors that enhance the mentorship experience, and found that mentee needs change with career stage. Importantly, satisfaction with the mentoring relationship is significantly associated with perceived satisfaction in achieving professional goals. Furthermore, we found that gender and race concordance in mentoring relationships is an important variable with the potential to increase diversity in the field of cardiology.

Status of Early-Career Academic Cardiology: A Global Perspective.

Early-career academic cardiologists, who many believe are an important component of the future of cardiovascular care, face myriad challenges. The Early Career Section Academic Working Group of the American College of Cardiology, with senior leadership support, assessed the progress of this cohort from 2013 to 2016 with a global perspective. Data consisted of accessing National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute public information, data from the American Heart Association and international organizations, and a membership-wide survey. Although the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute increased funding of career development grants, only a small number of early-career American College of Cardiology members have benefited as funding of the entire cohort has decreased. Personal motivation, institutional support, and collaborators continued to be positive influential factors. Surprisingly, mentoring ceased to correlate positively with obtaining external grants. The totality of findings suggests that the status of early-career academic cardiologists remains challenging; therefore, the authors recommend a set of attainable solutions.

Racial/Ethnic variation in carotid artery revascularization utilization and outcomes: analysis from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is not known whether racial or ethnic disparities observed with other revascularization procedures are also seen with carotid artery stenting (CAS) and endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: We compared the utilization and outcomes of CAS and CEA across racial/ethnic groups within the CARE Registry between May 2007 and December 2012. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2012, of the 13 129 patients who underwent CAS, majority were non-Hispanic whites (89.3%), followed by blacks (4.4%), Hispanics (4.3%), and other groups (2.0%). A similar distribution was observed among the 10 953 patients undergoing CEA (non-Hispanic whites, 92.6%; blacks, 3.5%; Hispanics, 2.8%; and other groups, 1.1%). During this time period, a trend toward proportionate increase in CAS utilization was observed in non-Hispanic whites and other groups, whereas the opposite was observed among Hispanics and blacks. This trend persisted even when hospitals performing both CAS and CEA were exclusively analyzed. Adherence to antiplatelet and statin therapy was significantly lower among blacks post CEA. In-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events remained comparable across groups post CAS and CEA. At 30 days, the incidence of stroke (7.2%) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (8.8%) was higher among blacks post CEA (P<0.05), after risk adjustment. CONCLUSION: During the study period, utilization of CAS and CEA was highest among non-Hispanic whites. There was a trend toward increased CAS utilization over time among non-Hispanic whites and other groups, and a trend toward increased CEA utilization among Hispanics and blacks. In-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events remained comparable between groups, whereas 30-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were significantly higher in blacks.