Research Training Program: Duke University and Brazilian Society of Cardiology

Background: Research coaching program focuses on the development of abilities and scientific reasoning. For health professionals, it may be useful to increase both the number and quality of projects and manuscripts. Objective: To evaluate the initial results and implementation methodology of the Research and Innovation Coaching Program of the Research on Research group of Duke University in the Brazilian Society of Cardiology. Methods: The program works on two bases: training and coaching. Training is done online and addresses contents on research ideas, literature search, scientific writing and statistics. After training, coaching favors the establishment of a collaboration between researchers and centers by means of a network of contacts. The present study describes the implementation and initial results in reference to the years 2011-2012. Results: In 2011, 24 centers received training, which consisted of online meetings, study and practice of the contents addressed. In January 2012, a new format was implemented with the objective of reaching more researchers. In six months, 52 researchers were allocated. In all, 20 manuscripts were published and 49 more were written and await submission and/or publication. Additionally, five research funding proposals have been elaborated. Conclusion: The number of manuscripts and funding proposals achieved the objectives initially proposed. However, the main results of this type of initiative should be measured in the long term, because the consolidation of the national production of high-quality research is a virtuous cycle that feeds itself back and expands over time. (Arq Bras Cardiol 2012;99(6):1075-1081)

Hand-carried ultrasound performed at bedside in cardiology inpatient setting – a comparative study with comprehensive echocardiography

Abstract Background Hand-carried ultrasound (HCU) devices have been demonstrated to improve the diagnosis of cardiac diseases over physical examination, and have the potential to broaden the versatility in ultrasound application. The role of these devices in the assessment of hospitalized patients is not completely established. In this study we sought to perform a direct comparison between bedside evaluation using HCU and comprehensive echocardiography (CE), in cardiology inpatient setting. Methods We studied 44 consecutive patients (mean age 54 ± 18 years, 25 men) who underwent bedside echocardiography using HCU and CE. HCU was performed by a cardiologist with level-2 training in the performance and interpretation of echocardiography, using two-dimensional imaging, color Doppler, and simple calliper measurements. CE was performed by an experienced echocardiographer (level-3 training) and considered as the gold standard. Results There were no significant differences in cardiac chamber dimensions and left ventricular ejection fraction determined by the two techniques. The agreement between HCU and CE for the detection of segmental wall motion abnormalities was 83% (Kappa = 0.58). There was good agreement for detecting significant mitral valve regurgitation (Kappa = 0.85), aortic regurgitation (kappa = 0.89), and tricuspid regurgitation (Kappa = 0.74). A complete evaluation of patients with stenotic and prosthetic dysfunctional valves, as well as pulmonary hypertension, was not possible using HCU due to its technical limitations in determining hemodynamic parameters. Conclusion Bedside evaluation using HCU is helpful for assessing cardiac chamber dimensions, left ventricular global and segmental function, and significant valvular regurgitation. However, it has limitations regarding hemodynamic assessment, an important issue in the cardiology inpatient setting.

Motivation and frustration in cardiology trial participation: the patient perspective

OBJECTIVE: The participation of humans in clinical cardiology trials remains essential, but little is known regarding participant perceptions of such studies. We examined the factors that motivated participation in such studies, as well as those that led to participant frustration. METHODS: Patients who had participated in hypertension and coronary arterial disease (phases II, III, and IV) clinical trials were invited to answer a questionnaire. They were divided into two groups: Group I, which included participants in placebo-controlled clinical trials after randomization, and Group II, which included participants in clinical trials in which the tested treatment was compared to another drug after randomization and in which a placebo was used in the washout period. RESULTS: Eighty patients (47 patients in Group I and 33 patients in Group II) with different socio-demographic characteristics were interviewed. Approximately 60% of the patients were motivated to participate in the trial with the expectation of personal benefit. Nine participants (11.2%) expressed the desire to withdraw, which was due to their perception of risk during the testing in the clinical trial (Group I) and to the necessity of repeated returns to the institution (Group II). However, the patients did not withdraw due to fear of termination of hospital treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study had a small patient sample, the possibility of receiving a benefit from the new tested treatment was consistently reported as a motivation to participate in the trials.

Effects of cardiology review of the electrocardiogram in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes

Misclassification of the electrocardiogram (ECG) contributes to treatment errors in patients with acute coronary syndrome. We hypothesized that cardiology ECG review could reduce these errors.

ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: the Task Force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS)

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) due to atherosclerosis of the arterial vessel wall and to thrombosis is the foremost cause of premature mortality and of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in Europe, and is also increasingly common in developing countries.1 In the European Union, the economic cost of CVD represents annually E192 billion1 in direct and indirect healthcare costs. The main clinical entities are coronary artery disease (CAD), ischaemic stroke, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The causes of these CVDs are multifactorial. Some of these factors relate to lifestyles, such as tobacco smoking, lack of physical activity, and dietary habits, and are thus modifiable. Other risk factors are also modifiable, such as elevated blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidaemias, or non-modifiable, such as age and male gender. These guidelines deal with the management of dyslipidaemias as an essential and integral part of CVD prevention. Prevention and treatment of dyslipidaemias should always be considered within the broader framework of CVD prevention, which is addressed in guidelines of the Joint European Societies’ Task forces on CVD prevention in clinical practice.2 – 5 The latest version of these guidelines was published in 20075; an update will become available in 2012. These Joint ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are complementary to the guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice and address not only physicians [e.g. general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists] interested in CVD prevention, but also specialists from lipid clinics or metabolic units who are dealing with dyslipidaemias that are more difficult to classify and treat.