Being a cardiologist looking in the mirror of prognosis assessment: who am I, a wizard or a mathematician?

Eur J Prev Cardiol

Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, via Parea, 4, 20138 Milan, Italy.

Published: October 2024

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwae127DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cardiologist mirror
4
mirror prognosis
4
prognosis assessment
4
assessment wizard
4
wizard mathematician?
4
cardiologist
1
prognosis
1
assessment
1
wizard
1
mathematician?
1

Similar Publications

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) has garnered increasing attention as a significant contributor to the pathogenesis of aortic stenosis (AS), prompting a focused investigation into innovative pharmacological strategies to target this lipoprotein and its associated risks. Despite its recognized role in AS progression, Lp(a) often remains overlooked in clinical assessments, mirroring the broader challenges observed in holistic disease management. This review delves into the mechanistic intricacies of Lp(a) involvement in AS pathophysiology and its potential as a therapeutic target.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has become the gold standard for noninvasive anatomic assessment of the coronary arteries. With high positive predictive value and even higher negative predictive value, CCTA allows for rapid determination of the presence or absence of coronary plaque and triage of patients' need for further invasive evaluation and treatment. From an interventional cardiologist's perspective, CCTA (more so than stress testing) is helpful in determining the need for invasive therapy.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Consensus criteria for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES) specify that at least one core clinical feature of cognitive impairment (CI; e.g., difficulties with memory, executive function) or neurobehavioral dysregulation (ND; e.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • Invasive hemodynamic measurement using right heart catheterization shows inconsistent results in treating heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock, potentially due to differences in data collection and interpretation methods.
  • A survey conducted among international HF and interventional cardiology professionals revealed substantial variations in how clinicians measure and interpret hemodynamic data, regardless of their subspecialty or experience level.
  • Findings indicate that HF specialists are more likely than interventional cardiologists to measure specific hemodynamic parameters, highlighting a need for standardization in clinical practices.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!