CardioExchange Archive

Several Cardiology Fellows who are attending AHA.13 in Dallas this week are blogging for CardioExchange. The Fellows include Vimal Ramjee, Siqin Ye, Seth Martin, Reva Balakrishnan, and  Saurav Chatterjee. You can find the previous post here. For more of our AHA.13 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 AHA.13 Headquarters.

AHA 2013 has got off to a rollicking start! The first day was largely devoted to the early career sessions, where lots of us fellows were walking about starry-eyed and a little overwhelmed at the scale of things, as well as to be walking the same halls as some of the legends of cardiology. There were lots of practical tips for the fellows on how to initiate a career in research and how to be clinically strong.

We faced some hard choices, because attending one session meant missing other concurrent sessions. The quality of the presentations was high, and a few of the presenters struck personal notes. For instance, in a talk titled “The Importance of Good Mentorship” for the early-career Functional Genomics and Translational Biology council, Dr. Emelia Benjamin presented a few anecdotal pearls – and shared that she learnt the art of texting from her mentee John J. Ryan! For me, it’s small human interactions such as these that make the mentor-mentee relationship so special.

There were also powerhouse presentations from the Peripheral Vascular Disease council – including from world leaders in the field – and a workshop for the fellows-in-training. I have attended this session for the past 2 years now. As many programs lack a lot of exposure to PVDs, especially in the initial months of fellowship, it has garnered a lot of interest.

One of the other aspects of the first day was the fact that things appeared well organized, to the point that even the unofficial symposia were summarized in a handout – and the teaching value of such a session became apparent during a presentation on “Cardiovascular Controversies in Diabetes” chaired by Dr. Valentin Fuster. One speaker from Canada outlined the recent preventive guidelines published by the AHA/ACC, while Dr. David Holmes brought to the fore some of the lesser-known issues associated with the FREEDOM trial (on which Dr. Fuster was PI): e.g., poor enrollment of patients (<10% of those screened); a higher risk for stroke with CABG compared with PCI in diabetics with multivessel disease; issues of patient preference in choosing lower immediate stroke risk over long-term mortality benefits. This sparked an interesting conversation between two giants of medicine.

Overall, an extremely encouraging and interesting prelude to what I hope will be a fantastic meeting, with lots of education and information for cardiologists in all stages of their careers.

What’s your take on the issues framed in the early sessions at AHA? Share them with the CardioExchange community.

Several Cardiology Fellows who are attending AHA.13 in Dallas this week are blogging for CardioExchange. The Fellows include Vimal Ramjee, Siqin Ye, Seth Martin, Reva Balakrishnan, and  Saurav Chatterjee. You can find the previous post here. For more of our AHA.13 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 AHA.13 Headquarters.

This year, unlike the last time I was at AHA, I arrived a day early and attended some sessions that I hadn’t been able to in the past: the fellows-in-training early-career sessions. The most memorable quote from the sessions came from Robert Califf —”A research career is more like a game of basketball than a game of golf” — emphasizing the importance of a team approach and collaboration with mentors in advancing your career goals.

There were many pearls from these sessions for those interested in pursuing an academic career, and some of the best advice came from an afternoon panel. Robert Harrington encouraged fellows to think outside the box in an era of dwindling NIH funding and to look for nontraditional sources of funding such as foundation grants. He emphasized that we need to rethink how research is funded altogether — pointing to the TASTE trial done in Sweden on aspiration thrombectomy, which was done with minimal funding, compared to multi-million-dollar randomized controlled trials.

Sanjiv Shah encouraged fellows to focus on their specific interests, not to overcommit to too many projects and papers (emphasizing that two focused papers are better than ten that are all over the place), and to form relationships with mentors and sponsors early.

Overall, the most common theme emphasized was that of persistence — learning to never give up in the face of rejection, as grant writing can be a difficult and overwhelming process with an often disappointing rejection rate.

Today was an informative day for fellows in all stages – and even for young faculty early in their career, important advice in the changing landscape.

What other pearls of wisdom did you obtain from these sessions, and how did you feel leaving them?

Several Cardiology Fellows who are attending AHA.13 in Dallas this week are blogging for CardioExchange. The Fellows include Vimal Ramjee, Siqin Ye, Seth Martin, Reva Balakrishnan, and  Saurav Chatterjee. You can find the previous post here and the next one here. For more of our AHA.13 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 AHA.13 Headquarters.

Sifting through pages of exceptional programming in the days prior to AHA Scientific Sessions, I found myself drawn to the Saturday sessions for young trainees aspiring to become successful investigators in cardiovascular medicine. Thanks to the AHA for reorganizing their sessions into distinct tracks, which made finding programs of interest quite easy.

Topics including “Surviving Single-Digit Funding Levels,” “What You Need to Know if You Are Looking for Funding,” and “How to Successfully Prepare a K99/R00 Award” were a few of the many insightful lectures given today for young investigators. Leaders in our field, including Drs. Mariell Jessup, Joseph Wu, Robert Harrington, Kiran Musunuru, and Robert Califf, set the stage to collectively answer the golden question that sits uneasily with all of us as we contemplate our career paths: Is it possible to succeed as a young investigator in the current funding climate?

Dr. Gail Peterson nicely outlined the barriers we face given a decrease of 5.5% in overall NIH funding this year due to sequestration. To my surprise, however, she pointed out that K award funding and immediate venues affecting young investigators have been protected in a deliberate fashion by our leaders. This was very reassuring to learn and was in keeping with the theme of pro-young investigator talks over the remainder of the day.

Drs. Joseph Wu and Kiran Musunuru gave fascinating lectures on just how much has yet to be done. The sheer amount of investigative opportunity, spanning from basic to translational and clinical assessments, was described as “lifetimes and lifetimes” abound, and I have to say that I absolutely agree. The birth of “-omics” has opened venues with exponentially growing volumes of data that make bioinformatics a discipline that will truly become its own. Findings generated in this realm will inevitably come full circle to re-inform and focus reductionist basic science experiments with a new vigor. On all ends, it is clear that science is truly booming.

That being said, Drs. Donald Menick, Maria Kontaridis, Asa Gustafsson, and Burns Blaxall walked young investigators through essential pearls of the trade, which were quite informative. They noted that while upholding the highest standard in our writing, study design, and science is of utmost importance, other key qualities of successful investigators include true passion, perseverance, and humility. All admitted to frustrations that come with the trade – rejected grants, low or unscorable NIH summary sheets, poor-performing lab personnel, declined papers – but offered reassurance that these are the very instances that allow for constructive learning and growth as a scientist.

All in all, I have to say that it was a really key day for young investigators. The day ended with a great reception for early-career trainees, and there were a good number of faculty present as well. It is clear that while funding may be down, there is no shortage of investigative opportunities; moreover, our senior leaders are doing what they can to protect crucial first steps toward that direction by maintaining K award funding and YI venues, and by coming out to support us. I look forward to hearing what other FITs thought, and to learning whether others share my outlook of cautious optimism as they move forward with their careers in cardiovascular investigation.

What do you think about the prospects for researchers given funding challenges?