Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers to open science: an international survey.

OBJECTIVE: Open science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. Implementing open science will significantly improve public access and supports equity. It also has the potential to foster innovation and reduce duplication through data and materials sharing. Here, we survey an international group of researchers publishing in cardiovascular journals regarding their perceptions and practices related to open science. METHODS: We identified the top 100 'Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine' subject category journals from the SCImago journal ranking platform. This is a publicly available portal that draws from Scopus. We then extracted the corresponding author's name and email from all articles published in these journals between 1 March 2021 and 1 March 2022. Participants were sent a purpose-built survey about open science. The survey contained primarily multiple choice and scale-based questions for which we report count data and percentages. For the few text-based responses we conducted thematic content analysis. RESULTS: 198 participants responded to our survey. Participants had a mean response of 6.8 (N=197, SD=1.8) on a 9-point scale with endpoints, not at all familiar (1) and extremely familiar (9), when indicating how familiar they were with open science. When asked about where they obtained open science training, most participants indicated this was done on the job self-initiated while conducting research (n=103, 52%), or that they had no formal training with respect to open science (n=72, 36%). More than half of the participants indicated they would benefit from practical support from their institution on how to perform open science practices (N=106, 54%). A diversity of barriers to each of the open science practices presented to participants were acknowledged. Participants indicated that funding was the most essential incentive to adopt open science. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that policy alone will not lead to the effective implementation of open science. This survey serves as a baseline for the cardiovascular research community's open science performance and perception and can be used to inform future interventions and monitoring.

Editor-in-Chief's Top Picks From 2021.

Each week, I record audio summaries for every paper in JACC, as well as an issue summary. This process has become a true labor of love due to the time they require, but I am motivated by the sheer number of listeners (16M+), and it has allowed me to familiarize myself with every paper that we publish. Thus, I have selected the top 100 papers (both Original Investigations and Review Articles) from distinct specialties each year. In addition to my personal choices, I have included papers that have been the most accessed or downloaded on our websites, as well as those selected by the JACC Editorial Board members. In order to present the full breadth of this important research in a consumable fashion, we will present these abstracts in this issue of JACC, as well as their Central Illustrations and podcasts. The highlights comprise the following sections: Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning (NEW section), Basic & Translational Research, Biomarkers (NEW section), Cardiac Failure & Myocarditis, Cardiomyopathies & Genetics, Cardio-Oncology, Cardiovascular Disease in Women, Coronary Disease & Interventions, Congenital Heart Disease, Coronavirus, Hypertension, Imaging, Metabolic & Lipid Disorders, Neurovascular Disease & Dementia, Promoting Health & Prevention, Rhythm Disorders & Thromboembolism, Vascular Medicine, and Valvular Heart Disease.1-100.

Hospital Characteristics and Early Enrollment Trends in the American College of Cardiology Voluntary Public Reporting Program.

Importance: Limited data exist regarding the characteristics of hospitals that do and do not participate in voluntary public reporting programs. Objective: To describe hospital characteristics and trends associated with early participation in the American College of Cardiology (ACC) voluntary reporting program for cardiac catheterization-percutaneous coronary intervention (CathPCI) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed enrollment trends and characteristics of hospitals that did and did not participate in the ACC voluntary public reporting program. All hospitals reporting procedure data to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI or ICD registries that were eligible for the public reporting program from July 2014 (ie, program launch date) to May 2017 were included. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify hospital characteristics associated with voluntary participation. Enrollment trends were evaluated considering the date US News & World Report (USNWR) announced that it would credit participating hospitals. Data analysis was performed from March 2017 to January 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital characteristics and participation in the public reporting program. Results: By May 2017, 561 of 1747 eligible hospitals (32.1%) had opted to participate in the program. Enrollment increased from 240 to 376 hospitals (56.7%) 1 month after the USNWR announcement that program participation would be considered as a component of national hospital rankings. Compared with hospitals that did not enroll, program participants had increased median (IQR) procedural volumes for PCI (481 [280-764] procedures vs 332 [186-569] procedures; P < .001) and ICD (114 [56-220] procedures vs 62 [25-124] procedures; P < .001). Compared with nonparticipating hospitals, an increased mean (SD) proportion of participating hospitals adhered to composite discharge medications after PCI (0.96 [0.03] vs 0.92 [0.07]; P < .001) and ICD (0.88 [0.10] vs 0.81 [0.12]; P < .001). Hospital factors associated with enrollment included participation in 5 or more NCDR registries (odds ratio [OR],1.98; 95% CI, 1.24-3.19; P = .005), membership in a larger hospital system (ie, 3-20 hospitals vs ≤2 hospitals in the system: OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.65-3.17; P = .001), participation in an NCDR pilot public reporting program of PCI 30-day readmissions (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 2.19-3.91; P < .001), university affiliation (vs government affiliation: OR, 3.85, 95% CI, 1.03-14.29; P = .045; vs private affiliation: OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.35-3.57; P < .001), Midwest location (vs South: OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; P = .02), and increased comprehensive quality ranking (4 vs 1-2 performance stars in CathPCI: OR, 8.08; 95% CI, 5.07-12.87; P < .001; 4 vs 1 performance star in ICD: OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.48-3.44; P < .001) (C statistic = 0.829). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that one-third of eligible hospitals participated in the ACC voluntary public reporting program and that enrollment increased after the announcement that program participation would be considered by USNWR for hospital rankings. Several hospital characteristics, experience with public reporting, and quality of care were associated with increased odds of participation.

Novel tech throws knock-out punch to ECG improving GP referral decisions to cardiology.

PURPOSE: In a comparator study, designed with assistance from the Food and Drug Administration, a State-of-the-Art (SOTA) ECG device augmented with automated analysis, the comparator, was compared with a breakthrough technology, Cardio-HART (CHART). METHODS: The referral decision defined by physician reading biosignal-based ECG or CHART report were compared for 550 patients, where its performance is calculated against the ground truth referral decision. The ground truth was established by cardiologist consensus based on all the available measurements and findings including echocardiography (ECHO). RESULTS: The results confirmed that CHART analysis was far more effective than ECG only analysis: CHART reduced false negative rates 15.8% and false positive (FP) rates by 5%, when compared with SOTA ECG devices. General physicians (GP's) using CHART saw their positive diagnosis rate significantly increased, from ~10% to ~26% (260% increase), and the uncertainty rate significantly decreased, from ~31% to ~1.9% (94% decrease). For cardiology, the study showed that in 98% of the cases, the CHART report was found to be a good indicator as to what kind of heart problems can be expected (the 'start-point') in the ECHO examination. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed that GP use of CHART resulted in more accurate referrals for cardiology, resulting in fewer true negative or FP-healthy or mildly abnormal patients not in need of ECHO confirmation. The indirect benefit is the reduction in wait-times and in unnecessary and costly testing in secondary care. Moreover, when used as a start-point, CHART can shorten the echocardiograph examination time.

A Primer on the Present State and Future Prospects for Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Applications in Cardiology.

The artificial intelligence (AI) revolution is well underway, including in the medical field, and has dramatically transformed our lives. An understanding of the basics of AI applications, their development, and challenges to their clinical implementation is important for clinicians to fully appreciate the possibilities of AI. Such a foundation would ensure that clinicians have a good grasp and realistic expectations for AI in medicine and prevent discrepancies between the promised and real-world impact. When quantifying the track record for AI applications in cardiology, we found that a substantial number of AI systems are never deployed in clinical practice, although there certainly are many success stories. Successful implementations shared the following: they came from clinical areas where large amount of training data was available; were deployable into a single diagnostic modality; prediction models generally had high performance in external validation; and most were developed as part of collaborations with medical device manufacturers who had substantial experience with implementation of new clinical technology. When looking into the current processes used for developing AI-based systems, we suggest that expanding the analytic framework to address potential deployment and implementation issues at project outset will improve the rate of successful implementation, and will be a necessary next step for AI to achieve its full potential in cardiovascular medicine.

Report on the 24th meeting of the ECCR 8th-9th October 2021.

The 24th meeting of the European Council for Cardiovascular Research (ECCR) was virtual and held online on October 8th and 9th, 2021. Over 130 participants including trainees, early career researchers (ECR) and established investigators from eleven European countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, U.K.), and participants also from Canada, Chile, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.A. connected to enjoy two days of outstanding research. The meeting was opened by its president, Professor Marisol Fernandez-Alfonso from the Complutense University in Madrid and covered several topics of cardiovascular research: from vascular and metabolic aspects to novel immunological mechanisms of cardiovascular disease.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiovascular Science: Anticipating Problems and Potential Solutions: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had worldwide repercussions for health care and research. In spring 2020, most non-COVID-19 research was halted, hindering research across the spectrum from laboratory-based experimental science to clinical research. Through the second half of 2020 and the first half of 2021, biomedical research, including cardiovascular science, only gradually restarted, with many restrictions on onsite activities, limited clinical research participation, and the challenges associated with working from home and caregiver responsibilities. Compounding these impediments, much of the global biomedical research infrastructure was redirected toward vaccine testing and deployment. This redirection of supply chains, personnel, and equipment has additionally hampered restoration of normal research activity. Transition to virtual interactions offset some of these limitations but did not adequately replace the need for scientific exchange and collaboration. Here, we outline key steps to reinvigorate biomedical research, including a call for increased support from the National Institutes of Health. We also call on academic institutions, publishers, reviewers, and supervisors to consider the impact of COVID-19 when assessing productivity, recognizing that the pandemic did not affect all equally. We identify trainees and junior investigators, especially those with caregiving roles, as most at risk of being lost from the biomedical workforce and identify steps to reduce the loss of these key investigators. Although the global pandemic highlighted the power of biomedical science to define, treat, and protect against threats to human health, significant investment in the biomedical workforce is required to maintain and promote well-being.

Scope of Practice of US Interventional Cardiologists from an Analysis of Medicare Billing Data.

The contemporary scope of practice of interventional cardiologists (ICs) in the United States and recent trends are unknown. Using Medicare claims from 2013 to 2017, we categorized ICs into 4 practice categories (only percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], PCI with noninvasive imaging, PCI with specialized interventions [peripheral/structural], and all 3 services) and evaluated associations with region, hospital bed size and teaching status, gender, and graduation year. Of 6,083 ICs in 2017, 10.9% performed only PCI, 68.3% PCI with noninvasive imaging, 5.7% PCI with specialized interventions, and 15.1% all 3 services. A higher proportion of Northeast ICs (vs South ICs) were performing only PCI (24.8% vs 7.3%) and PCI with specialized interventions (12% vs 3.4%), but lower PCI and noninvasive imaging (53.8% vs 71.7%) and all 3 services (9.3% and 17.6%). Regarding ICs at larger hospitals (bed size >575 vs <218), a higher proportion was performing only PCI (23.8% vs 5.2%) or PCI with specialized interventions (13.5% vs 1.7%) and lower proportion was performing PCI with noninvasive imaging (48.8% vs 78%), similar to teaching hospitals. Female ICs (vs male ICs) more frequently performed only PCI (18.9% vs 10.6%) and less frequently all 3 services (8.3% vs 15.4%). A lower proportion of recent graduates (2001 to 2016) performed only PCI (9.8% vs 13.8%) and PCI with noninvasive imaging (66.3% vs 72.6%) but a higher proportion performed all 3 services (18% vs 8.4%) than earlier graduates (1959 to 1984). From 2013 to 2017, only PCI and PCI with noninvasive imaging decreased, whereas PCI and specialized interventions and all 3 services increased (all p <0.001). In conclusion, there is marked heterogeneity in practice responsibilities among ICs, which has implications for training and competency assessments.