Risk and time preferences in individuals with lifestyle-related and non-lifestyle-related cardiovascular diseases: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) pilot a study of behavioural characterisation based on risk and time preferences in clinically well-characterised individuals, (2) assess the distribution of preferences in this population and (3) explore differences in preferences between individuals with 'lifestyle-related' (LS) and 'non-lifestyle-related' (NLS) cardiovascular diseases. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with an economic online experiment to collect risk and time preferences, a detailed clinical characterisation and a sociodemographic and lifestyle survey. A definition of LS and NLS groups was developed. SETTING: Specialist outpatient clinics of the clinic for cardiology and pneumology of the University Hospital Düsseldorf and patients from a cardiology practice in Düsseldorf. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 74 individuals with cardiovascular diseases. OUTCOMES: Risk and time preferences. RESULTS: The implementation of the study process, including participant recruitment and data collection, ran smoothly. The medical checklist, the survey and the time preference instrument were well received. However, the conceptual understanding of the risk preference instrument resulted in inconsistent choices for many participants (47%). The remaining individuals were more risk averse (27%) than risk seeking (16%) and risk neutral (10%). Individuals in our sample were also more impatient (49%) than patient (42%). The participant classification showed that 65% belonged to the LS group, 19% to the NLS group and 16% could not be assigned (unclear allocation to lifestyle (ULS) group). Excluding the ULS group, we show that individuals in the LS group were more risk seeking, and unexpectedly, more patient than those in the NLS group. CONCLUSIONS: The process of the pilot study and its results can be used as a basis for the design of the main study. The differences in risk and time preferences between the LS and NLS groups provide us with a novel hypothesis for unhealthy behaviours: individuals never give up a bad habit, they simply postpone the latter, which can be tested alongside other additional research questions.

Consistency of left ventricular ejection fraction measurements in the early time course of STEMI.

BACKGROUND: Early after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), initial LV reshaping and hypokinesia may affect analysis of LV function. Concomitant microvascular dysfunction may affect LV function as well. OBJECTIVE: To perform a comparative evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and stroke volume (SV) by different imaging modalities to assess LV function early after STEMI. METHODS: LVEF and SV were assessed using serial imaging within 24 h and 5 days after STEMI using cineventriculography (CVG), 2-dimensional echocardiography (2DE), 2D/3D cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) (2D/3D) in 82 patients. RESULTS: 2D analyses of LVEF using CVG, 2DE and 2D CMR yielded uniform results within 24 h and 5 days of STEMI. SV assessment between CVG and 2DE was comparable, whereas values for SV were higher using 2D CMR (p < 0.01 all). This was due to higher LVEDV measurements. LVEF by 2D versus 3D CMR was comparable, 3D CMR yielded higher volumetric values. This was not influenced by infarct location or infarct size. CONCLUSIONS: 2D analysis of LVEF yielded robust results across all imaging techniques implying that CVG, 2DE, and 2D CMR can be used interchangeably early after STEMI. SV measurements differed substantially between imaging techniques due to higher intermodality-differences of absolute volumetric measurements.

Knowledge of HbA1c and LDL-C treatment goals, subjective level of disease-related information and information needs in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND/HYPOTHESIS: Risk factor control of diabetes mellitus (DM) and especially dyslipidemia remains unsatisfactory in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We aimed to analyze the knowledge of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treatment goals, subjective level of information, and information needs in very high-risk patients with ASCVD. METHODS: ASCVD patients (n = 210; 75 ± 9 years; 71.4% male; 89.5% coronary disease) with DM (96.7% type 2) completed a questionnaire assessing knowledge of HbA1c and LDL-C treatment goals and subjective level of information and information needs on disease-related topics of DM and ASCVD. Serum LDL-C and HbA1c were measured. RESULTS: HbA1c goal (<7.0% in 60.6%) was attained more frequently than LDL-C goal (<70 mg/dl in 39.9%; p < .01). Significantly more participants named the correct goal for HbA1c compared to LDL-C (52.9% vs. 2.4%; p < .01). Subjective levels of information were higher and information needs were lower for DM than for ASCVD (p < .01 for all topics). No associations of knowledge of treatment goals and level of information with the attainment of treatment goals for HbA1c and LDL-C were found. However, in multivariate regression, higher levels of education were associated with knowledge of treatment goals (HbA1c: odds ratio [OR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.72, p = .04; LDL-C: OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.07-5.03; p = .03). CONCLUSION: In very high-risk patients with ASCVD, a deficit of knowledge of treatment goals to control dyslipidemia exists when compared to DM, patients felt significantly better informed for topics of DM than for ASCVD and display higher information needs for topics of ASCVD.

Process Standardization in High-Risk Coronary Interventions is Associated With Quality of Care Measures.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is one of the most important issues in healthcare. High-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (HR-PCIs) offer well-established treatment options for patients with complex coronary artery disease and multiple comorbidities. Whether process standardization using standard operating procedure (SOP) management and checklists improves HR-PCI is still unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective study analyzed procedural characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and length of hospital stay in patients who received HR-PCI in a German heart center 12 months before the introduction of process standardization using SOP management-the SOP (-) group-and after the introduction of process standardization using SOP management-the SOP (+) group. A total of 192 patients were included, with 77 patients in the SOP (-) group and 115 patients in the SOP (+) group. The mean age in the SOP (-) group was 72.0 ± 10.2 years and 81.8% were male; mean age in the SOP (+) group was 75.2 ± 10.4 years and 68.7% were male. Acute kidney events were significantly lower in the SOP (+) group than in the SOP (-) group (7.0% vs 10.4%; P=.04). Bleeding was the most common adverse event and significantly lower in the SOP (+) group than in the SOP (-) group (13.1% vs 31.2%, respectively; P<.01). There were trends toward shorter length of hospital stay in the SOP (+) group compared with the SOP (-) group (9.3 ± 6.4 days vs 10.9 ± 7.3 days, respectively; P=.10) and days of hospital stay in the intensive care unit (3.7 ± 4.0 days vs 4.7 ± 4.3 days; P=.07). SOP management was independently associated with shorter length of hospital stay in multivariate regression analysis. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study shows significantly better quality of care measures after the introduction of process standardization techniques using SOP management in HRPCIs, with a lower risk of adverse outcomes and shorter length of hospital stay.

A retrospective cohort study comparing differences in 30-day mortality among critically ill patients aged ≥ 70 years treated in European tax-based healthcare systems (THS) versus social health insurance systems.

In Europe, tax-based healthcare systems (THS) and social health insurance systems (SHI) coexist. We examined differences in 30-day mortality among critically ill patients aged ≥ 70 years treated in intensive care units in a THS or SHI. Retrospective cohort study. 2406 (THS n = 886; SHI n = 1520) critically ill ≥ 70 years patients in 129 ICUs. Generalized estimation equations with robust standard errors were chosen to create population average adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Data were adjusted for patient-specific variables, organ support and health economic data. The primary outcome was 30-day-mortality. Numerical differences between SHI and THS in SOFA scores (6 ± 3 vs. 5 ± 3; p = 0.002) were observed, but clinical frailty scores were similar (> 4; 17% vs. 14%; p = 0.09). Higher rates of renal replacement therapy (18% vs. 11%; p < 0.001) were found in SHI (aOR 0.61 95%CI 0.40-0.92; p = 0.02). No differences regarding intubation rates (68% vs. 70%; p = 0.33), vasopressor use (67% vs. 67%; p = 0.90) and 30-day-mortality rates (47% vs. 50%; p = 0.16) were found. Mortality remained similar between both systems after multivariable adjustment and sensitivity analyses. The retrospective character of this study. Baseline risk and mortality rates were similar between SHI and THS. The type of health care system does not appear to have played a role in the intensive care treatment of critically ill patients ≥ 70 years with COVID-19 in Europe.

Distinguishing atrial fibrillation from sinus rhythm using commercial pulse detection systems: The non-interventional BAYathlon study.

OBJECTIVE: Early diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a priority for stroke prevention. We sought to test four commercial pulse detection systems (CPDSs) for ability to distinguish AFib from normal sinus rhythm using a published algorithm (Zhou et al., PLoS One 2015;10:e0136544), compared with visual diagnosis by electrocardiogram inspection. METHODS: BAYathlon was a prospective, non-interventional, single-centre study. Adult cardiology patients with documented AFib or sinus rhythm who were due to have a routine 5-min electrocardiogram were randomized to undergo a parallel 5-min pulse assessment with a Polar V800, eMotion Faros 360, TomTom heart rate monitor, or Adidas miCoach Smart Run. RESULTS: 144 patients (73 with AFib, 71 with sinus rhythm (based on electrocardiograms); median age: 73 years; 53.5% male) were analysed. Algorithm sensitivities (primary endpoint) and specificities for AFib when applied to CPDS recordings were 93.3% and 94.1% with the Polar V800, 90.0% and 84.2% with the eMotion Faros 360, and 0% and 100% with the other CPDSs (analysis period: 127 heart rate signals + 2 min). When applied to routine electrocardiograms, the algorithm correctly detected AFib in 71/73 patients. Different analysis periods (127 heart rate signals +1 or 3 min) only slightly changed the sensitivities with the Polar V800 and eMotion Faros 360 and had no effect on the sensitivities with the other CPDSs. CONCLUSION: AFib screening using the applied algorithm is feasible with the Polar V800 and eMotion Faros 360 (which provide RR interval data) but not with the other CPDSs (which provide pre-processed heart rate time series).ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02875106.

Validation of National Cardiovascular Data Registry risk models for mortality, bleeding and acute kidney injury in interventional cardiology at a German Heart Center.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk scores for mortality, bleeding and acute kidney injury (AKI) are accurate outcome predictors of coronary catheterization procedures in North American populations. However, their application in German clinical practice remained elusive and we thus aimed to verify their use. METHODS: NCDR scores for mortality, bleeding and AKI and corresponding clinical outcomes were retrospectively assessed in patients undergoing catheterization for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or for elective coronary procedures at a German Heart Center from 2014 to 2017. Risk model performance was assessed using receiver-operating-characteristic curves (discrimination) and graphical analysis/logistic regression (calibration). RESULTS: A total of 1637 patients were included, procedures were performed for STEMI (565 patients, 34.5%), NSTEMI (572 patients, 34.9%) and elective purposes (500 patients, 30.5%); 6% (13% of STEMI and 5% of NSTEMI patients) presented in cardiogenic shock and 3% with resuscitated cardiac arrest. Radial access was used in 38% of procedures and cross-over was necessary in 5%; PCI was performed in 60% of procedures. In-hospital mortality was 6.3% (STEMI 14.5%; NSTEMI 3.7%; elective 0%) and major bleedings occurred in 5.6% (STEMI 10.6%; NSTEMI 5.4%; elective 0.2%); AKI was detected in 18.1% of patients (STEMI 23.7%; NSTEMI 27.3%; elective 1.4%), amounting to KDIGO stage I/II/III in 11.5%/3.5%/3.2%. NCDR risk models discriminated very well for mortality [AUC 0.93 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-0.95] and well for major bleeding (AUC 0.82, CI 0.78-0.86) and any AKI (AUC 0.83, CI 0.81-0.86). Discrimination in the subgroup of patients with PCI was comparable (mortality: AUC 0.90; major bleeding: AUC 0.78; any AKI: AUC 0.79). However, calibration showed considerable underestimation of mortality and AKI in high-risk patients, while major bleeding was consistently overestimated (Hosmer-Lemeshow p < 0.02 for all outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: The NCDR risk models showed excellent performance in discriminating high-risk from low-risk patients in contemporary German interventional cardiology. Model calibration for adverse event probability prediction, however, is limited and demands recalibration, especially in high-risk patients.

Kidney function stratified outcomes of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk.

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atrial fibrillation have increased risks for stroke and bleeding under oral anticoagulation (OAC). We investigated an alternative therapy of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in CKD patients in this study.Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing LAAO were included in a retrospective analysis and stratified for kidney function into CKD/Non-CKD groups (cutoff eGFR 60 ml/min). Procedural characteristics, in-hospital and follow-up events were analysed and compared between groups.Results: LAAO was performed in 146 patients (81 CKD; 65 Non-CKD), mean follow-up was 391 days. Groups differed in eGFR (40.1 (CKD) vs. 75.1 (Non-CKD) ml/min) and CHA2DS2VASc scores (4.65 ± 1.3 (CKD) vs. 4.06 ± 1.4 (Non-CKD)). Procedural success was 98.6%, contrast-induced acute kidney injury was significantly more frequent in CKD patients (11.1% vs. 0%; p = .004). Follow-up mortality was higher in CKD (10.5/100 PY vs. 4.2/100 PY; p = .156). Follow-up stroke rates were 2.3/100 (CKD) patient-years (PY) and 1.4/100 PY (Non-CKD) (p = 1.000), corresponding to a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 60% (all), 68% (CKD) and 71% (Non-CKD) compared to expected stroke rates. Follow-up major bleeding rates were 3.5/100 PY (CKD) and 4.2/100 PY (Non-CKD), corresponding to RRR of 57% (all), 61% (CKD) and 53% (Non-CKD) compared to OAC.Conclusions: Left atrial appendage occlusion shows comparable efficacy for stroke and bleeding prevention in CKD and Non-CKD patients. CKD patients experience more adverse events during follow-up and a significantly increased risk for periprocedural contrast-induced acute kidney injury.

Routine Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor Therapy in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend adjunct glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) only in selected patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study aimed to evaluate routine GPI use in STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of routine GPI vs control therapy in STEMI. Data from retrieved studies were abstracted and evaluated in a comprehensive meta-analysis. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials with 8585 patients were included: 10 trials randomized tirofiban, 9 abciximab, 1 trial eptifibatide, and 1 trial used abciximab+tirofiban; only 1 trial used dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel/ticagrelor. RESULTS: Routine GPI use was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4% [GPI] vs 3.2%; risk ratio [RR], 0.72; P = 0.01) and 6 months (3.7% vs 4.8%; RR, 0.76; P = 0.02), and a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction (1.1% vs 2.1%; RR, 0.55; P = 0.0006), repeat revascularization (2.5% vs 4.1%; RR, 0.63; P = 0.0001), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow <3 after percutaneous coronary intervention (5.4% vs 8.2%; RR, 0.61; P < 0.0001), and ischemic stroke (RR, 0.42; P = 0.04). Major (4.7% vs 3.4%; RR, 1.35; P = 0.005) and minor bleedings (7.2% vs 5.1%; RR, 1.39; P = 0.006) but not intracranial bleedings (0.1% vs 0%; RR, 2.7; P = 0.37) were significantly increased under routine GPI. CONCLUSIONS: Routine GPI administration in STEMI resulted in a reduction in mortality, driven by reductions in recurrent ischemic events-however predominantly in pre-prasugrel/ticagrelor trials. Trials with contemporary STEMI management are needed to confirm these findings.

Endovascular Thrombectomy as a Means to Improve Survival in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Although endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke is recommended by guidelines to improve functional recovery, thus far there are insufficient data on its association with mortality. Objective: To identify guideline-relevant trials of EVT vs medical therapy reporting 90-day mortality and perform a meta-analysis. Data Sources: All randomized clinical trials cited for recommendations on EVT vs medical therapy in the latest 2018 American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guidelines. Study Selection: Ten American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guideline-relevant randomized clinical trials of EVT vs medical therapy were selected for inclusion. Two EVT trials were excluded owing to infrequent use of EVT. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were abstracted by 2 independent investigators and double-checked by 4 others. Singular study data were integrated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and a random-effects model to compute summary statistics of risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of 90-day mortality and 90-day intracranial hemorrhage was analyzed; sensitivity analyses were performed in early-window EVT trials (which included patients from the onset of symptoms onward) vs late-window EVT trials (which included patients from 6 hours after onset of symptoms onward). Results: In 10 trials with 2313 patients, EVT significantly reduced the risk for 90-day mortality by 3.7% compared with medical therapy (15.0% vs 18.7%; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P = .03). Trends were similar in early-window (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.01; P = .06) and late-window trials only (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.41-1.40; P = .38). There was no difference in the risk for intracranial hemorrhage in EVT vs medical therapy (4.2% vs 4.0%; RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71-1.72; P = .65). Limitations of the studies include trial protocol heterogeneity and bias originating from prematurely terminated trials. Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis of all evidence on EVT cited in the 2018 American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guidelines shows significant benefits for survival during the first 90 days after acute ischemic stroke compared with medical therapy alone.

Patent foramen ovale closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic ischemic stroke: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous randomized controlled trials (RCT) failed to demonstrate benefits of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure (PFO-C) over medical therapy (MT) for secondary prevention of cryptogenic ischemic stroke. Three recently published RCTs, however, turned out positive for PFO-C and warrant an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: Data from all available RCTs on PFO-C vs. MT for secondary prevention of cryptogenic ischemic stroke up until October 2017 were abstracted and analyzed in a comprehensive meta-analysis. Clinical efficacy outcomes were recurrent stroke, recurrent TIA, and their combination; safety outcomes were mortality, major bleeding, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and new-onset atrial fibrillation/flutter (NOAF). RESULTS: Five trials including a total of 3440 patients were included in the meta-analysis. PFO-C significantly reduced recurrent stroke [odds ratio (OR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.90; p = 0.03] and the combination of recurrent stroke + TIA (OR 0.53, CI 0.36-0.80; p = 0.002) compared to MT; recurrent TIA alone showed no differences (OR 0.77; CI 0.51-1.14; p = 0.19). NOAF was significantly more frequent after PFO-C (OR 5.75, CI 3.09-10.70; p < 0.00001). Mortality (OR 0.80, CI 0.39-1.67), major bleeding (OR 0.96, CI 0.48-1.92), and VTE (OR 2.45, CI 0.75-7.99) remained neutral. Trials with superior patient selection for PFO-C showed advantageous results compared to MT. CONCLUSIONS: PFO-C after cryptogenic ischemic stroke is safe and effective to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke and recurrent stroke + TIA, albeit with an increased risk for NOAF.

Data Sharing: A New Editorial Initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors' Network.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations to improve the editorial standards and scientific quality of biomedical journals. These recommendations range from uniform technical requirements to more complex and elusive editorial issues including ethical aspects of the scientific process. Recently, registration of clinical trials, conflicts of interest disclosure, and new criteria for authorship- emphasizing the importance of responsibility and accountability-, have been proposed. Last year, a new editorial initiative to foster sharing of clinical trial data was launched. This review discusses this novel initiative with the aim of increasing awareness among readers, investigators, authors and editors belonging to the Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology.

Data Sharing: A New Editorial Initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors´ Network.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations to improve the editorial standards and scientific quality of biomedical journals. These recommendations range from uniform technical requirements to more complex and elusive editorial issues including ethical aspects of the scientific process. Recently, registration of clinical trials, conflicts of interest disclosure, and new criteria for authorship -emphasizing the importance of responsibility and accountability-, have been proposed. Last year, a new editorial initiative to foster sharing of clinical trial data was launched. This review discusses this novel initiative with the aim of increasing awareness among readers, investigators, authors and editors belonging to the Editors´ Network of the European Society of Cardiology.

Data Sharing: A New Editorial Initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors´ Network.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations to improve the editorial standards and scientific quality of biomedical journals. These recommendations range from uniform technical requirements to more complex and elusive editorial issues including ethical aspects of the scientific process. Recently, registration of clinical trials, conflicts of interest disclosure, and new criteria for authorship - emphasizing the importance of responsibility and accountability-, have been proposed. Last year, a new editorial initiative to foster sharing of clinical trial data was launched. This review discusses this novel initiative with the aim of increasing awareness among readers, investigators, authors and editors belonging to the Editors´ Network of the European Society of Cardiology. Resumo O Comitê Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas (ICMJE) fornece recomendações para aprimorar o padrão editorial e a qualidade científica das revistas biomédicas. Tais recomendações variam desde requisitos técnicos de uniformização até assuntos editoriais mais complexos e elusivos, como os aspectos éticos do processo científico. Recentemente, foram propostos registro de ensaios clínicos, divulgação de conflitos de interesse e novos critérios de autoria, enfatizando a importância da responsabilidade e da responsabilização. No último ano, lançou-se uma nova iniciativa editorial para fomentar o compartilhamento dos dados de ensaios clínicos. Esta revisão discute essa nova iniciativa visando a aumentar a conscientização de leitores, investigadores, autores e editores filiados à Rede de Editores da Sociedade Europeia de Cardiologia.

Data Sharing: A New Editorial Initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors' Network / Compartir los datos de los estudios: Una nueva iniciativa editorial del Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas. Implicaciones para la red europea de editores cardiovasculares

Abstract: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations to improve the editorial standards and scientific quality of biomedical journals. These recommendations range from uniform technical requirements to more complex and elusive editorial issues including ethical aspects of the scientific process. Recently, registration of clinical trials, conflicts of interest disclosure, and new criteria for authorship - emphasizing the importance of responsibility and accountability -, have been proposed. Last year, a new editorial initiative to foster sharing of clinical trial data was launched. This review discusses this novel initiative with the aim of increasing awareness among readers, investigators, authors and editors belonging to the Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology.

Resumen: El Comite internacional de editores de revistas medicas (CIERM) propone recomendaciones para mejorar los standares editoriales y la calidad científica de las revistas biomédicas. Estas recomendaciones abarcan desde requerimeintos ténicos uniformados a temas editoriales mas complejos y evasivos, como los aspectos bioéticos relacionados con el proceso científico. Recientemente se han propuesto algunas iniciativas editoriales, como el registro de los ensayos clinicos, la declaración de los conflictos de interés y los nuevos criterios para autoría (que destacan la responsabilidad de los autores sobre el estudio). El año pasado se presentó una nueva iniciativa editorial para resaltar la importancia de compartir los datos generados en los estudios clinicos. En este artículo se discute esta nueva iniciativa editorial, con la idea de difundir su conocimiento entre los lectores, investigadores, autores y editores de la red de editores de revistas cardiovasculares nacionales de la Sociedad Europea de Cardiología.

Data Sharing: A New Editorial Initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors' Network.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations to improve the editorial standards and scientific quality of biomedical journals. These recommendations range from uniform technical requirements to more complex and elusive editorial issues including ethical aspects of the scientific process. Recently, registration of clinical trials, conflicts of interest disclosure, and new criteria for authorship - emphasizing the importance of responsibility and accountability - have been proposed. Last year, a new editorial initiative to foster sharing of clinical trial data was launched. This review discusses this novel initiative with the aim of increasing awareness among readers, investigators, authors and editors belonging to the Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology.

Data Sharing: A New Editorial Initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors' Network.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations to improve the editorial standards and scientific quality of biomedical journals. These recommendations range from uniform technical requirements to more complex and elusive editorial issues including ethical aspects of the scientific process. Recently, registration of clinical trials, conflicts of interest disclosure, and new criteria for authorship -emphasizing the importance of responsibility and accountability-, have been proposed. Last year, a new editorial initiative to foster sharing of clinical trial data was launched. This review discusses this novel initiative with the aim of increasing awareness among readers, investigators, authors and editors belonging to the Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology.

Data Sharing: A New Editorial Initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors' Network.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations to improve the editorial standards and scientific quality of biomedical journals. These recommendations range from uniform technical requirements to more complex and elusive editorial issues including ethical aspects of the scientific process. Recently, registration of clinical trials, conflicts of interest disclosure, and new criteria for authorship - emphasizing the importance of responsibility and accountability -, have been proposed. Last year, a new editorial initiative to foster sharing of clinical trial data was launched. This review discusses this novel initiative with the aim of increasing awareness among readers, investigators, authors and editors belonging to the Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology.

Data Sharing: A New Editorial Initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors´ Network / Compartilhamento de dados: Nova Iniciativa Editorial do Comitê Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas. Implicações para a Rede de Editores

Abstract The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations to improve the editorial standards and scientific quality of biomedical journals. These recommendations range from uniform technical requirements to more complex and elusive editorial issues including ethical aspects of the scientific process. Recently, registration of clinical trials, conflicts of interest disclosure, and new criteria for authorship - emphasizing the importance of responsibility and accountability-, have been proposed. Last year, a new editorial initiative to foster sharing of clinical trial data was launched. This review discusses this novel initiative with the aim of increasing awareness among readers, investigators, authors and editors belonging to the Editors´ Network of the European Society of Cardiology.

Resumo O Comitê Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas (ICMJE) fornece recomendações para aprimorar o padrão editorial e a qualidade científica das revistas biomédicas. Tais recomendações variam desde requisitos técnicos de uniformização até assuntos editoriais mais complexos e elusivos, como os aspectos éticos do processo científico. Recentemente, foram propostos registro de ensaios clínicos, divulgação de conflitos de interesse e novos critérios de autoria, enfatizando a importância da responsabilidade e da responsabilização. No último ano, lançou-se uma nova iniciativa editorial para fomentar o compartilhamento dos dados de ensaios clínicos. Esta revisão discute essa nova iniciativa visando a aumentar a conscientização de leitores, investigadores, autores e editores filiados à Rede de Editores da Sociedade Europeia de Cardiologia.