Cardiology Training in Brazil and Developed Countries: Some Ideas for Improvement.

Huge variations exist in cardiology training programs across the world. In developing (middle-income) countries, such as Brazil, to find the right balance between training improvements and social and economic conditions of the country may be a difficult task. Adding more training years or different mandatory rotations, for instance, may be costly and not have an immediate direct impact on enhancing patient care or public health. In this text, we compare the Brazilian cardiology training system with other proposals implemented in developed countries from North America and Europe, aiming to point out issues worth of future discussion. Factors such as training rotations and competencies, and program duration and distribution across the countries are presented. The number of first year cardiology trainees per inhabitants is similar between Brazil and the United States (0.24 medical residents/100,000 inhabitants in Brazil and 0.26 medical residents/100,000 inhabitants in the USA). These numbers should be analyzed considering the inequality in training program distribution across Brazil, since most centers are located in the Southeast and South regions. Having more residency programs in distant areas could improve cardiovascular care in these areas. Duration of cardiology Residency Training is shorter in Brazil (two years) in comparison with developed countries (> 3 years). Brazilian residency programs give less emphasis to scientific research and diagnostic methods. Unifying minimum training requirements across the globe would facilitate the development of international learning opportunities and even professional exchange around the world.

Cardiology training in Brazil and developed countries: some ideas for improvement / Residência em cardiologia no Brasil e em países desenvolvidos: ideias para melhoria

ABSTRACT: Huge variations exist in cardiology training programs across the world. In developing (middle-income) countries, such as Brazil, to find the right balance between training improvements and social and economic conditions of the country may be a difficult task. Adding more training years or different mandatory rotations, for instance, may be costly and not have an immediate direct impact on enhancing patient care or public health. In this text, we compare the Brazilian cardiology training system with other proposals implemented in developed countries from North America and Europe, aiming to point out issues worth of future discussion. Factors such as training rotations and competencies, and program duration and distribution across the countries are presented. The number of first year cardiology trainees per inhabitants is similar between Brazil and the United States (0.24 medical residents/100,000 inhabitants in Brazil and 0.26 medical residents/100,000 inhabitants in the USA). These numbers should be analyzed considering the inequality in training program distribution across Brazil, since most centers are located in the Southeast and South regions. Having more residency programs in distant areas could improve cardiovascular care in these areas. Duration of cardiology Residency Training is shorter in Brazil (two years) in comparison with developed countries (> 3 years). Brazilian residency programs give less emphasis to scientific research and diagnostic methods. Unifying minimum training requirements across the globe would facilitate the development of international learning opportunities and even professional exchange around the world.

RESUMO: Existe enorme variação nos programas de residência em cardiologia no mundo. Em países em desenvolvimento, tal como o Brasil, encontrar o equilíbrio correto entre melhorias nos programas de residência e condições socioeconômicas do país pode ser uma tarefa difícil. Aumentar a duração dos programas ou o número de estágios obrigatórios, por exemplo, pode ter um custo elevado e não ter um impacto imediato na melhoria do cuidado do paciente ou na saúde pública. Neste texto, comparamos o sistema de residência em cardiologia brasileiro com outras propostas implementadas em países desenvolvidos da América do Norte e Europa, com objetivo de indicar questões para discussões futuras. Apresentamos fatores como rodízios por estágios e competências, duração e distribuição dos programas pelos países. O número de alunos no primeiro ano de Residência em cardiologia por número de habitantes é similar entre o Brasil e os Estados Unidos (0,24 médicos residentes/100 mil habitantes no Brasil e 0,26 médicos residentes/100 mil habitantes nos EUA). Esses números devem ser analisados considerando a desigualdade na distribuição dos programas pelo país, uma vez que a maioria dos centros localiza-se nas regiões sul e sudeste do país. A existência de mais programas de residência em áreas distantes melhoraria o cuidado cardiovascular nessas áreas. O período de treinamento é menor no Brasil (dois anos) em comparação a países desenvolvidos (>3 anos). Os programas de residência no Brasil dão menos ênfase em pesquisa científica e métodos diagnósticos. O estabelecimento de exigências mínimas que sejam padronizadas a todos os países facilitaria o desenvolvimento de oportunidades de aprendizagem e mesmo o intercâmbio de profissionais pelo mundo.

Can diagnostic and procedural skills required to practice cardiology as a specialist be mastered in 3 years?

Cognitive and procedural skills required of cardiologists have increased in the past 10 years. What is unknown is whether residents consistently meet recommended volumes during training and what their own subjective assessments of their competency are after training. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine whether current training provides residents with opportunities to develop skills to function independently and (2) identify whether residents perceive gaps in their skills. We surveyed current and recent graduates of adult cardiology programs in Canada. One hundred ten responses from 425 surveys were received. Procedural and diagnostic test interpretation volumes were recorded, as were the optimum number the respondents believed were important to complete to function independently. These volumes were compared with the 2008 American College of Cardiology Core Cardiology Training Symposium (COCATS 3) and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) recommendations for training. The proportion of residents meeting recommended volumes for diagnostic test interpretation ranged from 7% (Holter monitors) to 91% (echocardiograms). For procedures, the range was from 71% (echocardiography) to 100% (cardioversion). The ratio of residents' perceived minimum numbers believed to be required for proficiency for diagnostic test interpretation to those recommended ranged from 14% (electrocardiograms) to 116% (echocardiograms), and for procedures, the ratio was 66% (temporary pacemaker placement) to 116% (echocardiography). Recent graduates' perception of minimum required numbers to achieve competency is underestimated compared with COCATS 3 and CCS recommendations. Few graduates achieved the recommended volume targets suggested for diagnostic test interpretation.

Electrocardiographic interpretation skills of cardiology residents: are they competent?

Achieving competency at electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation among cardiology subspecialty residents has traditionally focused on interpreting a target number of ECGs during training. However, there is little evidence to support this approach. Further, there are no data documenting the competency of ECG interpretation skills among cardiology residents, who become de facto the gold standard in their practice communities. We tested 29 Cardiology residents from all 3 years in a large training program using a set of 20 ECGs collected from a community cardiology practice over a 1-month period. Residents interpreted half of the ECGs using a standard analytic framework, and half using their own approach. Residents were scored on the number of correct and incorrect diagnoses listed. Overall diagnostic accuracy was 58%. Of 6 potentially life-threatening diagnoses, residents missed 36% (123 of 348) including hyperkalemia (81%), long QT (52%), complete heart block (35%), and ventricular tachycardia (19%). Residents provided additional inappropriate diagnoses on 238 ECGs (41%). Diagnostic accuracy was similar between ECGs interpreted using an analytic framework vs ECGs interpreted without an analytic framework (59% vs 58%; F(1,1333) = 0.26; P = 0.61). Cardiology resident proficiency at ECG interpretation is suboptimal. Despite the use of an analytic framework, there remain significant deficiencies in ECG interpretation among Cardiology residents. A more systematic method of addressing these important learning gaps is urgently needed.

American Society of Echocardiography Consensus Statement on the Clinical Applications of Ultrasonic Contrast Agents in Echocardiography.

UNLABELLED: ACCREDITATION STATEMENT: The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The ASE designates this educational activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit.trade mark Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. The American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers and Cardiovascular Credentialing International recognize the ASE's certificates and have agreed to honor the credit hours toward their registry requirements for sonographers. The ASE is committed to resolving all conflict-of-interest issues, and its mandate is to retain only those speakers with financial interests that can be reconciled with the goals and educational integrity of the educational program. Disclosure of faculty and commercial support sponsor relationships, if any, have been indicated. TARGET AUDIENCE: This activity is designed for all cardiovascular physicians, cardiac sonographers, and nurses with a primary interest and knowledge base in the field of echocardiography; in addition, residents, researchers, clinicians, sonographers, and other medical professionals having a specific interest in contrast echocardiography may be included. OBJECTIVES: Upon completing this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Demonstrate an increased knowledge of the applications for contrast echocardiography and their impact on cardiac diagnosis. 2. Differentiate the available ultrasound contrast agents and ultrasound equipment imaging features to optimize their use. 3. Recognize the indications, benefits, and safety of ultrasound contrast agents, acknowledging the recent labeling changes by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding contrast agent use and safety information. 4. Identify specific patient populations that represent potential candidates for the use of contrast agents, to enable cost-effective clinical diagnosis. 5. Incorporate effective teamwork strategies for the implementation of contrast agents in the echocardiography laboratory and establish guidelines for contrast use. 6. Use contrast enhancement for endocardial border delineation and left ventricular opacification in rest and stress echocardiography and unique patient care environments in which echocardiographic image acquisition is frequently challenging, including intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency departments. 7. Effectively use contrast echocardiography for the diagnosis of intracardiac and extracardiac abnormalities, including the identification of complications of acute myocardial infarction. 8. Assess the common pitfalls in contrast imaging and use stepwise, guideline-based contrast equipment setup and contrast agent administration techniques to optimize image acquisition.

Prognostic value of myocardial perfusion contrast echocardiography in patients with suggested or known ischemic heart disease.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the prognostic value of myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) in patients with known or suggested coronary artery disease compared with technetium-99m sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of SPECT-MPI is well established for patients with coronary artery disease. It is less well defined by MCE. METHODS: In all, 51 consecutive patients with suggested coronary artery disease prospectively underwent MCE and SPECT-MPI at baseline and after dipyridamole infusion. MCE and SPECT-MPI were independently analyzed for myocardial perfusion. Cardiac events during the follow-up period were determined, and event-free survival was calculated for MCE and SPECT-MPI techniques separately. RESULTS: MCE (log rank P < .005) and SPECT-MPI (log rank P < .05) demonstrated equivalent event-free survival. The negative predictive value for events for both MCE and SPECT-MPI was 100%. CONCLUSION: MCE accurately classifies patients at risk for cardiac events and provides prognostic information comparable with validated SPECT-MPI techniques.

The assessment of technical and interpretative proficiency in echocardiography.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the relationship between traditional measures of proficiency in echocardiography and an objective assessment of technical and interpretative skills. BACKGROUND: Determination of competency in echocardiography is currently based on the number of months of training, echocardiograms scanned, and echocardiograms interpreted. It has not been established whether completion of these requirements is a surrogate for competency. METHODS: In all, 22 cardiology fellows underwent an echocardiography objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). RESULTS: There was a correlation between the number of echocardiograms scanned and the interpretation (r = 0.45, P = .038) and scanning (r = 0.42, P = .048) scores. There was a weak correlation between the number of echocardiograms interpreted and interpretation scores (r = 0.33); and number of months of training and the scanning (r = 0.39) and interpretation (r = 0.42) scores. CONCLUSIONS: Technical and interpretative proficiency in echocardiography is not related to traditional measures. An objective assessment of acquisition and interpretation of echocardiographic data should be incorporated into the assessment of proficiency in echocardiography.

Incremental value of parametric quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion by triggered Low-Power myocardial contrast echocardiography.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the assessment of myocardial perfusion by myocardial parametric quantification (MPQ) with technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT) imaging in humans. BACKGROUND: Accurate visual interpretation of myocardial contrast echocardiographic (MCE) images is qualitative and requires considerable experience. Current computer-assisted quantitative perfusion protocols are tedious and lack spatial resolution. Myocardial parametric quantification is a novel method that quantifies, color encodes, and displays perfusion data as a set of myocardial parametric images according to the relative degree of perfusion. METHODS: Forty-six consecutive patients underwent prospective stress/rest technetium-99m sestamibi gated-SPECT imaging and MCE using intravenous Optison or Definity. Apical two- and four-chamber cine loops at rest and after dipyridamole (0.56 mg/kg) stress were acquired. For each patient, the following assessments of myocardial perfusion were performed: 1). visual cine-loop assessment (VIS); 2). MPQ assessment; and 3). combined VIS + MPQ assessment. RESULTS: The segmental rates of agreement for myocardial perfusion with SPECT were 83%, 89%, and 92% (kappa = 0.46, 0.58, and 0.68) for VIS, MPQ, and VIS + MPQ, respectively. Similar trends were seen for the classification of the presence or absence of a moderate to severe perfusion defect, with the agreement for VIS, MPQ, and VIS + MPQ being 92%, 97%, and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial parametric quantification demonstrates good agreement with SPECT and incremental agreement with VIS. Analysis strategies that incorporate MPQ demonstrate better agreement with SPECT than visual analysis alone.

Regimented research: a recipe for success?

Cardiology trainees at the University of Toronto participate annually in a mandatory research competition. Its purpose is to promote creative thinking, help develop a greater understanding of the scientific method and encourage them to pursue research as a career. Since its inception, this research competition's outcomes have not been assessed. This study set out to determine which components of a cardiology training program are important in the development of a career in cardiovascular research and addressed whether participation in this mandatory research competition was considered important to the development of a career in cardiovascular research. This study found that both faculty and trainees considered the following factors to be important in the development of a research career: (1) a mentor to provide support and guidance; (2) regular attendance at national and international meetings; (3) a fixed block of time within the training program dedicated solely to research activity; and (4) an academic environment that provides exposure to clinicians with varied research interests and ability. Neither trainees nor faculty believed that mandatory participation in a research competition was of significant benefit in the development of a research career, although faculty's perception of such a benefit was greater than the trainees'.

Determination of left ventricular ejection fraction using intravenous contrast and a semiautomated border detection algorithm.

Manual endocardial tracing using Simpson's method (MANUAL SIMP) provides an accurate assessment of left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We have previously demonstrated in patients who are difficult to image: (1) the incremental accuracy of contrast-enhanced power harmonic imaging and MANUAL SIMP in the calculation of LVEF; and (2) the use of intravenous contrast-combined MANUAL SIMP was the most accurate method of LVEF determination. However, MANUAL SIMP is time-consuming, requires accurate planimetry of the endocardial borders, and is difficult to apply routinely in the clinical situation. The current study prospectively studied the accuracy of intravenous contrast and a semiautomated endocardial border detection algorithm in the determination of LVEF in 51 patients with suboptimal images. LVEF was also calculated using contrast-enhanced power harmonic imaging and MANUAL SIMP. We demonstrated that there was good agreement between LVEF determined using both MANUAL SIMP and semiautomated endocardial border detection, and radionuclide angiography (standard of comparison).