CardioExchange Archive

Several Cardiology Fellows who are attending ACC.11 this week are blogging together on CardioExchange. The Fellows include Sandeep Mangalmurti, Hansie Mathelier, John Ryan (moderating and providing an outsider’s view from Chicago), Amit Shah, and Justin Vader. See the previous post in this series, and check back often to learn about the biggest buzz in New Orleans.

Part of the argument to explain decreasing conference attendance in recent years is the rise of electronic communication. This morning when I awoke, I had already received a few emails detailing the results of PARTNER A from a variety of news sources. And although I now had access to a variety of sound-bites regarding stroke risk and vascular complications, I realized that I was missing something. I was missing the buzz in the room when results like these are produced, but most of all, I was missing the ability to form my own opinion of these results.

Also, the electronic updates mostly address only the major, late-breaking clinical trials. They do not address the smaller, intimate sessions where new advances and innovative thinking are unveiled. The findings and proposals introduced at these sessions, such as carotid applanation tonometry, can take up to year before reaching publication, if not longer. Often, it is the side rooms that you stumble into when you cannot find any of your friends that prove the highest yield. The other advantage of going to these smaller talks is that they can provide fodder for one’s own research projects. Thomas Ryan, MD, (no relation) once told me that the best research at the national conferences is often in the poster hall and advised me to spend as long a time as possible walking carefully through the science presented there. Again, this isn’t possible when fifteen hundred miles away.

One of the great bonuses of attending these meetings is getting the chance to see one’s co-fellows present. Many fellowship programs offer a dry run where, in the weeks leading up to the meeting, fellows present their talks to their peers and faculty. Again, this pales in comparison to being there for the real thing. Of course, sometimes the dry run goes a lot better than the conference talk, but getting the chance to see your colleagues present is a unique opportunity, should not be taken for granted, and should not be missed.

From a faculty perspective, there are several reasons to ration the number of meetings that one attends — limited time-off, funding constraints, and heavy clinical and research burden. However, as fellows, this is our time to take advantage of having some more freedom with our schedule, as we are defining our interests and careers. Although previously I did not fully appreciate the unique opportunities that these national meetings offer, I know now that there is more to these conferences than can be summarized in 140 characters or less.

For more of our ACC.11 coverage of late-breaking clinical trials, interviews with the authors of the most important research, and blogs from our fellows on the most interesting presentations at the meeting, check out our Coverage Roundup.