Pros: 1. No resources/funding required 2. Gain in-depth knowledge in a specific area 3. SOA reviews are highly cited 4. Excellent venue to hone✍️skills
Cons: 1. Time consuming 2. Not a substitute 4 original🔬 3. Unpredictable fate
How do I select a topic?
1. ✍️ on broad topics if no good 📝 exist (eg, SCAD, aneurysms, TV interventions), or if u find a novel angle (eg, stakeholder perspectives on stroke prevention in AF)
2. ✍️ on niche areas (eg, electrosurgery, ICE for LAAO, TAVR leaflet thrombosis)
What makes a review state-of-the-art review?
✔️Regular reviews read like book chapters (background, main text/data summary, conclusions)
✔️SOA are mentally stimulating 🖼 pieces (connect past & present w future, rich illustrations, highlight open issues & suggest solutions)
Is doing a systematic review better than SOA?
Depends on topic & intended message
👇aim was to🔦 lack of credible data on tissue valve durability
1. Multipart figures easily doable with PPT 2. Special illustrations require an illustrator. If your🏥 doesn’t have one, hire one. I paid out of pocket for👇in the past. Totally worth it!
A med student asked: why do we need epicardial coronary arteries? Can’t the ❤️ utilize the abundant oxygenated blood within it? We then talked about transmyocardial revasc (TMR), which apparently has resurfaced some recently. Thought I’ll summarize my read on it in this thread 👇
1. TMR theory is based on reptilian circulation. Reptiles are devoid of epicardial arteries & hence rely on intramyocardial sinusoids for tissue oxygenation. 2. 1st TMR attempt (sort of) was by Claude Beck in 1935. Beck noted that external myocardial injury > new vessel formation
3. In 1970s myocardial needle acupuncture was attempted to replicate reptilian circulation. However, the created channels prematurely closed w fibrous growth. 4- In 1980s laser was introduced to increase channel patency. This was thought to be a game changer for refractory angina