Author

  • Primer metaanálisis sobre mortalidad entre CABG y Stents arroja como favorable a la Cirugía

    On: 23 febrero, 2018
    In: Cardiología Intervencionista, Investigación
    Views: 785
     Like

    La revista The Lancet publicó un extenso metaanálisis de 11 estudios randomizados entre stents(bare metal o farmacológicos) y cirugía de revascularización miocárdica, para pacientes con enfermedad de múltiples vasos y tronco no protegido de CI. Se basó en la base de datos individuales de todos esos estudios randomizados.

    La conclusión es que los pacientes tratados con cirugía tienen una significativa mejor sobrevida que los tratados con stents, en relación con la complejidad de las lesiones y la presencia de diabetes. No hubo interacción entre el uso de stents convencionales o farmacológicos.

    Los resultados de este importante estudio sobre métodos de revascularización en enfermedad coronaria, el primero que analiza mortalidad, será motivo seguramente de mucha discusión y análisis de subgrupos.

    Summary
    Background
    Numerous randomised trials have compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with coronary artery disease. However, no studies have been powered to detect a difference in mortality between the revascularisation strategies.

    Methods
    We did a systematic review up to July 19, 2017, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents. Eligible studies included patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease who did not present with acute myocardial infarction, did PCI with stents (bare-metal or drug-eluting), and had more than 1 year of follow-up for all-cause mortality. In a collaborative, pooled analysis of individual patient data from the identified trials, we estimated all-cause mortality up to 5 years using Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared PCI with CABG using a random-effects Cox proportional-hazards model stratified by trial. Consistency of treatment effect was explored in subgroup analyses, with subgroups defined according to baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics.

    Findings
    We included 11 randomised trials involving 11 518 patients selected by heart teams who were assigned to PCI (n=5753) or to CABG (n=5765). 976 patients died over a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (SD 1·4). Mean Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score was 26·0 (SD 9·5), with 1798 (22·1%) of 8138 patients having a SYNTAX score of 33 or higher. 5 year all-cause mortality was 11·2% after PCI and 9·2% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR] 1·20, 95% CI 1·06–1·37; p=0·0038). 5 year all-cause mortality was significantly different between the interventions in patients with multivessel disease (11·5% after PCI vs 8·9% after CABG; HR 1·28, 95% CI 1·09–1·49; p=0·0019), including in those with diabetes (15·5% vs 10·0%; 1·48, 1·19–1·84; p=0·0004), but not in those without diabetes (8·7% vs 8·0%; 1·08, 0·86–1·36; p=0·49). SYNTAX score had a significant effect on the difference between the interventions in multivessel disease. 5 year all-cause mortality was similar between the interventions in patients with left main disease (10·7% after PCI vs 10·5% after CABG; 1·07, 0·87–1·33; p=0·52), regardless of diabetes status and SYNTAX score.

    Interpretation
    CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease. Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies.

    Funding
    None.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30423-9/fulltext

    Read More

  • Más datos a favor del Prasugrel en síndromes coronarios agudos

    On: 19 febrero, 2018
    In: Cardiología Clínica, Cardiología Intervencionista, Investigación
    Views: 789
     Like

    Un extenso registro de Gran Bretaña muestra nuevamente los beneficios del Prasugrel sobre Ticagrelor y Clopidogrel en pacientes con infarto agudo del miocardio supra ST y tratados con angioplastia primaria.
    Ante la ausencia casi definitiva de datos randomizados válidos, ¿deberán incorporarse todas estas evidencias de registros observacionales prospectivos en las guías de tratamiento?

    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES:
    Prasugrel and ticagrelor both reduce ischaemic endpoints in high-risk acute coronary syndromes, compared with clopidogrel. However, comparative outcomes of these two newer drugs in the context of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unclear. We sought to examine this question using the British Cardiovascular Interventional Society national database in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI.

    METHODS:
    Data from January 2007 to December 2014 were used to compare use of P2Y12 antiplatelet drugs in primary PCI in >89 000 patients. Statistical modelling, involving propensity matching, multivariate logistic regression (MLR) and proportional hazards modelling, was used to study the association of different antiplatelet drug use with all-cause mortality.

    RESULTS:
    In our main MLR analysis, prasugrel was associated with significantly lower mortality than clopidogrel at both 30 days (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, P=0.014) and 1 year (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97, P=0.011) post PCI. Ticagrelor was not associated with any significant differences in mortality compared with clopidogrel at either 30 days (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21, P=0.237) or 1 year (OR 1.058, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, P=0.247). Finally, ticagrelor was associated with significantly higher mortality than prasugrel at both time points (30 days OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44, P=0.020; 1 year OR 1.19 95% CI 1.04 to 1.35, P=0.01).

    CONCLUSIONS:
    In a cohort of over 89 000 patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI in the UK, prasugrel is associated with a lower 30-day and 1-year mortality than clopidogrel and ticagrelor. Given that an adequately powered comparative randomised trial is unlikely to be performed, these data may have implications for routine care.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29437885

     

    Read More

  • Fundamentos de TAVR Express: Reporte de una larga experiencia con alta precoz de pacientes sometidos a reemplazo percutáneo de válvula aórtica(TAVR). Factores predictivos de alta temprana al día siguiente del implante

    On: 1 febrero, 2018
    In: Cardiología Intervencionista
    Views: 642
     Like

    Abstract:

    Objectives This study sought to investigate predictors and safety of next-day discharge (NDD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

    Background Information about predictors and safety of NDD after TAVR is limited.

    Methods The study reviewed 663 consecutive patients who underwent elective balloon-expandable TAVR (from July 2014 to July 2016) at our institution. We first determined predictors of NDD in patients who underwent minimalist transfemoral TAVR. After excluding cases with complications, we compared 30-day and 1-year outcomes between NDD patients and those with longer hospital stay using Cox regression adjusting for the Predicted Risk of Mortality provided by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The primary endpoint was the composite of mortality and readmission at 1 year.

    Results A total of 150 patients had NDD after TAVR and 210 patients had non-NDD. Mean age and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality were 80.7 ± 8.8 years and 6.6 ± 3.7%, respectively. Predictors of NDD were male sex (odds ratio [OR]: 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28 to 3.18), absence of atrial fibrillation (OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.57), serum creatinine (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.92), and age (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.93 to 0.98). As expected, 84% of patients with complications had non-NDD. After excluding cases with complications, there was no difference in hazard rates of the 30-day composite outcome between NDD and non-NDD (hazard ratio: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.91), but the hazard of the composite outcome at 1 year was significantly lower in the NDD group (hazard ratio: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.81). This difference in the composite outcome can be explained by the lower hazard of noncardiovascular related readmission in the NDD group.

    Conclusions Factors predicting NDD include male sex, absence of atrial fibrillation, lower serum creatinine, and younger age. When compared with patients without complications with a longer hospital stay, NDD appears to be safe, achieving similar 30-day and superior 1-year clinical outcomes.

    http://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2018/01/16/13/07/predictors-and-clinical-outcomes-of-next-day-discharge

    Read More

  • Asociación entre la oclusión del apéndice auricular izquierdo y la readmisión por tromboembolismo en pacientes con fibrilación auricular sometidos a cirugía cardíaca concomitante

    On: 25 enero, 2018
    In: Cardiología Intervencionista, Investigación
    Views: 767
     Like

    Un artículo publicado recientemente en el JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) destaca los beneficios de la oclusión quirúrgica del auricular izquierdo para prevenir eventos tromboembólicos en pacientes mayores con fibrilación auricular sometidos a cirugía cardíaca.

    Asociación entre la oclusión del apéndice auricular izquierdo y la readmisión por tromboembolismo en pacientes con fibrilación auricular sometidos a cirugía cardíaca concomitante.

    Friedman DJ, Piccini JP, Wang T, Zheng J, Malaisrie SC, Holmes DR, Suri RM, Mack MJ, Badhwar V, Jacobs JP, Gaca JG, Chow SC, Peterson ED, Brennan JM.

    Key Points
    Question Is surgical left atrial appendage occlusion associated with a reduction in long-term thromboembolic events?

    Findings In this retrospective cohort study of 10 524 Medicare recipients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery, surgical left atrial appendage occlusion, compared with no surgical left atrial appendage occlusion, was significantly associated with lower risk of readmission for thromboembolism at 3 years (unadjusted, 4.2% vs 6.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.67).

    Meaning Surgical left atrial appendage occlusion may be of benefit in preventing thromboembolic events in older patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery, although randomized trials would be necessary to provide definitive evidence.

     

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29362794

     

    Read More

  • Redefiniendo la presión arterial: riesgos y beneficios

    On: 22 enero, 2018
    In: Cardiología Clínica, Investigación
    Views: 878
     Like

    La nueva guía de diagnóstico, prevención, detección, evaluación y manejo en EEUU de hipertensión arterial cambiaría drásticamente el número de pacientes en EEUU considerados como hipertensos y necesitados de medicación. Las nuevas directrices fueron emitidas por la American College of Cardiology (ACC) y la American Heart Association (AHA).

    Los autores de esta revisión, sin embargo, le hacen una crítica, ya que muchos pacientes tendrían además efectos secundarios adversos, por la medicación que deben tomar, que no se compensarían con la disminución del riesgo cardíaco.

     

    Redefining Hypertension — Assessing the New Blood-Pressure Guidelines
    George Bakris, M.D., and Matthew Sorrentino, M.D.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1716193?query=featured_home

     

    Read More

  • Rivaroxaban con o sin aspirina en enfermedades cardiovasculares estables: lo que dejó el COMPASS Trial

    On: 18 enero, 2018
    In: Cardiología Intervencionista, Investigación
    Views: 815
     Like

    Uno de los highlights de la investigación científica cardiológica en 2017 fue el COMPASS trial presentado por John W. Eikelboom en el New England Journal of Medicine, que demostró que el rivaroxaban con aspirina mejora los resultados en pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular estable. Dejamos la descripción del abstract del paper y sus autores para más detalles:

    Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease.
    Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Bosch J, Dagenais GR, Hart RG, Shestakovska O, Diaz R, Alings M, Lonn EM, Anand SS, Widimsky P, Hori M, Avezum A, Piegas LS, Branch KRH, Probstfield J, Bhatt DL, Zhu J, Liang Y, Maggioni AP, Lopez-Jaramillo P, O’Donnell M, Kakkar AK, Fox KAA, Parkhomenko AN, Ertl G, Störk S, Keltai M, Ryden L, Pogosova N, Dans AL, Lanas F, Commerford PJ, Torp-Pedersen C, Guzik TJ, Verhamme PB, Vinereanu D, Kim JH, Tonkin AM, Lewis BS, Felix C, Yusoff K, Steg PG, Metsarinne KP, Cook Bruns N, Misselwitz F, Chen E, Leong D, Yusuf S; COMPASS Investigators.

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention.

    METHODS:
    In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months.

    RESULTS:
    The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28844192

     

    Read More

  • ¿Cuál es el inhibidor ideal para tratar a los pacientes con síndromes coronarios agudos incluyendo infarto con supra ST: clopidogrel, ticagrelos o prasugrel ? ¿Qué nos dice la evidencia clínica? ¿Cuánto tiempo deben tomar esta droga los pacientes y cuáles son los potenciales riesgos?

    On: 9 enero, 2018
    In: Cardiología Intervencionista, Investigación
    Views: 880
     Like

    Dos artículos recientemente publicados tratan de responder estos interrogantes, uno de ellos publicado por el grupo del Centro CECI.

    Estos son los dos artículos:

    1- Wilson SJ , Newby D, Dawson D, Irving J and Berry C Duration of DAPT in acute coronary syndrome Heart. 2017 Apr;103(8):573-580. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-309871. Epub 2017 Mar 1.
    2- Rodriguez AE, Rodriguez-Granillo AM, Azcarrunz SD, Peralta-Bazan F, Cho MY. Did Prasugrel and Ticagrelor Offer the Same Benefit in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes after Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Compared to Clopidogrel? Insights from Randomized Clinical Trials, Registries and Meta-analysis. Curr Pharm Des. 2018 Jan 8. doi: 10.2174/1381612824666180108121834.

    • «Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome»

    Abstract: Despite a large volume of evidence supporting the use of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome, there remains major uncertainty regarding the optimal duration of therapy. Clinical trials have varied markedly in the duration of therapy, both across and within trials. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that shorter durations of dual antiplatelet therapy are superior because the avoidance of atherothrombotic events is counterbalanced by the greater risks of excess major bleeding with apparent increases in all-cause mortality with longer durations. These findings did not show significant heterogeneity according to whether patients had stable or unstable coronary heart disease. Moreover, the potential hazards and benefits may differ when applied to the general broad population of patients encountered in everyday clinical practice who have markedly higher bleeding and atherothrombotic event rates. Clinicians lack definitive information regarding the duration of therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome and risk scores do not appear to be sufficiently robust to address these concerns. We believe that there is a pressing need to undertake a broad inclusive safety trial of shorter durations of therapy in real world populations of patients with acute coronary syndrome. The clinical evidence would further inform future research into strategies for personalised medicine.

    • «Did Prasugrel and Ticagrelor Offer the Same Benefit in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes after Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Compared to Clopidogrel? Insights from Randomized Clinical Trials, Registries and Meta-analysis.»

    Abstract: 

    BACKGROUND:
    According to ACC/ AHA guidelines, a minimum of 1 year of dual anti- platelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin and a platelet ADP-receptor antagonist (P2Y12 inhibitor) is recommended for patients presenting acute coronary syndromes (ACS), regardless of which type of revascularization is performed during the acute event.

    METHODS:
    The purpose of this presentation was to review the present data either from a direct randomized comparison among the three compounds and also large prospective observational registries and meta-analysis were analyzed in detail. With this aim, we performed an extensive large search from PubMed/Medline Journals identifying studies comparing fashion the new P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with ACS including ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)in direct and indirect manner.

    RESULTS:
    Pivotal large randomized clinical trials (RCT) in patients with ACS including STEMI, comparing clopidogrel, a first generation P2Y12 inhibitor against the newer prasugrel and ticagrelor showed major efficacy advantages of the latters although both drugs had more bleeding risk than clopidogrel. Direct comparisons of prasugrel and ticagrelor from large RCT are not yet available, however, several observational registries and meta-analysis reported results from an indirect comparison between both compounds. Major findings and limitations of each of these studies were identified, highlighted and discussed.

    CONCLUSION:
    Prasugrel and ticagrelor are both more effective than clopidogrel to prevent adverse cardiac events in patients with ACS. Compared to ticagrelor, prasugrel appears to be more effective in patients with STEMI , although lack of randomized data didn’t allow to draw definitive conclusions.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28249994

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29308737

    Read More

  • Relaciones de la Industria Farmacéutica y de Dispositivos con los Editores de Revistas Científicas de Alto Impacto

    On: 9 enero, 2018
    In: Investigación
    Views: 744
     Like

    Acaba de salir publicado un estudio sobre las relaciones de la Industria con los Editores y Editores Asociados de las más importantes revistas científicas médicas en sus distintas especialidades de EEUU.
    En ella se analizan los estrechos vínculos financieros que tendrían algunos Editores con la Industria farmacéutica, que serían mucho más frecuentes e importantes que lo deseado y que indudablemente afecta la independencia y transparencia de la información médica publicada en las mismas.
    Los autores identificaron 52 Journals con alto impacto científico en su área y la mayoría de los Editores tenían fuertes relaciones con la Industria farmacéutica y/o de «devices» médicos, algunos de ellos con cifras millonarias.
    Sólo Editores de EEUU fueron seleccionados, ya que los pagos de la Industria están en un registro nacional, no pudiendo los autores conocer el de aquellos de otras nacionalidades ya que la respuesta espontánea dada por los propios involucrados tiene obviamente muchas limitaciones.
    Cuando los autores quisieron corroborar estos datos con los Editores en Jefe de cada Journal solo el 23% respondió a la encuesta.
    La relación de Editores en Jefe/Asociados o aquellos con fuerte decisión en la posible aceptación de trabajos científicos (Deputy Editor) debería ser factor de exclusión de los mismos para actuar como tales y afecta en grado severo la credibilidad de las publicaciones científicas especialmente en Revistas de alto impacto.
    Este excelente artículo publicado en BMJ open habla una vez más de la transparencia Editorial de esta revista inglesa.

    Abstract:

    Objective: To estimate financial payments from industry to US journal editors.

    Design: Retrospective observational study.

    Setting: 52 influential (high impact factor for their specialty) US medical journals from 26 specialties and US Open Payments database, 2014.

    Participants: 713 editors at the associate level and above identified from each journal’s online masthead.

    Main outcome measures: All general payments (eg, personal income) and research related payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to eligible physicians in 2014. Percentages of editors receiving payments and the magnitude of such payments were compared across journals and by specialty. Journal websites were also reviewed to determine if conflict of interest policies for editors were readily accessible.

    Results: Of 713 eligible editors, 361 (50.6%) received some (>$0) general payments in 2014, and 139 (19.5%) received research payments. The median general payment was $11 (£8; €9) (interquartile range $0-2923) and the median research payment was $0 ($0-0). The mean general payment was $28 136 (SD $415 045), and the mean research payment was $37 963 (SD $175 239). The highest median general payments were received by journal editors from endocrinology ($7207, $0-85 816), cardiology ($2664, $0-12 912), gastroenterology ($696, $0-20 002), rheumatology ($515, $0-14 280), and urology ($480, $90-669). For high impact general medicine journals, median payments were $0 ($0-14). A review of the 52 journal websites revealed that editor conflict of interest policies were readily accessible (ie, within five minutes) for 17/52 (32.7%) of journals.

    Conclusions: Industry payments to journal editors are common and often large, particularly for certain subspecialties. Journals should consider the potential impact of such payments on public trust in published research.

    http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4619

    BMJ 2017;359:j4619

    Read More

  • Entrevista al Dr Rodriguez.

    On: 20 septiembre, 2017
    In: Cardiología Clínica
    Views: 1048
     Like

    • PACIENTES

      Este es un espacio de divulgación para que los pacientes pueden conocer los procedimientos y técnicas habituales realizadas en los procedimientos coronarios y cualquier otra información necesaria para despejar las dudas que puedan

    • UBICACION

      Centro de Estudio en Cardiologia Intervencionista (Larrea 910 4A) Caba- Argentina

      011-49629012 /011-49648721 achesini@centroceci.com.ar

    • PROFESIONALES

      Las investigaciones clínicas que desarrollamos incluyen el uso de nuevos dispositivos para el tratamiento percutáneo de la enfermedad de las arterias coronarias, reemplazo valvular percutáneo y nuevas tecnologías de imagen en tomografía coronaria

    Read More

  • H-Index, una forma de evaluar la calidad científica.

    On: 6 enero, 2017
    In: Sin categoría
    Views: 1381
     Like

    La evidencia científica es uno de los pilares del conocimiento médico en todo el mundo. Los estudios clínicos, registros y puntos de vista, en forma de “papers”, son el modo de dar a conocer la información. Pero publicar un paper no es sencillo, y las revistas científicas tienen estándares de calidad que evalúan cada manuscrito que les llega y la rigurosidad a la hora de evaluar un manuscrito para ser publicado pasa diferentes filtros, como el de los “pares”, que son expertos en la materia sobre la cual versa el manuscrito, que lo evalúan, critican, exigen aclaraciones o modificaciones y, en el peor de los casos, rechazan el mismo. Además hay normas éticas, de métodos y estadísticas que hay que cumplir y existen editores en cada una de las revistas que se dedican a evaluar estos puntos. Estos estándares siguen ciertos lineamientos normatizados internacionalmente y si se cumplen la revista puede comenzar a formar parte de los Index Medicus, que son aquellos sitios en donde se reúnen todas las publicaciones que cumplen los requisitos. El mas importante de estos es PubMed, que reúne a las mejores revistas científicas del mundo. No es simple ingresar a PubMed y muy pocas revistas científicas en latinoamérica tienen ese honor. Sin embargo no todas las revistas tienen la misma “calidad” a pesar de estar en PubMed. De acuerdo a cuanto se lean, citen, referencien los manuscritos en ellas, las revistas poseen un score, llamado de “Impacto”, que indica cuan influyente será un paper si es publicado en dicha revista. Mientras mas alto el score de impacto, mas importante  – y mas rigurosa a la hora de publicar – será la revista. En las ciencias duras la revista mas importante es el Nature. En medicina las revistas con mayor factor de impacto son el Lancet y el New England Journal of Medicine. En cardiología, el Circulation, El Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) y el European Heart Journal, entre muchos otros.

    Y, para que sirve todo esta larga introducción? Publicar es una forma objetivable de cuanto investiga, se actualiza y profundiza en sus conocimientos un científico. Es innovar, es descubrir, es correr los límites y avanzar.

    Y así como existe el factor de impacto para medir la calidad de las revistas científicas hay un score que mide la calidad científica de instituciones o personas, el “H-Index”, que mide la calidad profesional en función a las citas que han recibido de sus artículos científicos las personas o instituciones que se dedican a la investigación y el conocimiento. Es una medida de excelencia académica que se obtiene evaluando dos variables, el número de trabajos científicos publicados y la cantidad deveces que los mismos son citados como referencia en la literatura médica mundial. 

    En USA y Europa, al momento de seleccionar personas que cumpliran roles de importancia, como profesores universitarios o académicos, el H-Index es el “gold standard” que se utiliza para evaluar a los diferentes postulantes. Por ejemplo, para ocupar el cargo de Jefe de Cardiología y/o medicina de la Universidad de Erasmus, en Rotterdam, Holanda, los aspirantes debían tener un h-index mayor a 20 (Bruining N, Cummins P, Serruys PW.  EuroIntervention 2011;7:143-7.)

    La investigación es una actividad mal remunerada, que lleva tiempo y sacrificio pero que es la esencia misma de la ciencia. Sin ella no existiría un solo avance ni progreso alguno. Todo sería chato e igual.

    El Centro de Estudios en Cardiología Intervencionista(CECI) a la fecha actual 9 de Enero del 2018, continúa largamente liderando los índices de calidad académica de nuestro país en el área de Cardiología Intervencionista de acuerdo al H Index y aún ampliando las diferencias con otras instituciones líderes de la Argentina, lo que marca la importante actividad científico/académica de los profesionales del Centro CECI.

    Read More