Hung, Olivia Y.

Abstract IntroductionSimulation technology has an established role in teaching technical skills to cardiology fellows, but their impact on teaching trainees to interpret coronary angiographic (CA) images has not been systematically studied. The aim of this randomized controlled study was to test whether structured simulation training in addition to traditional methods would improve CA image interpretation skills in a group of novices to advanced medical trainees.MethodsWe prospectively randomized 105 subjects comprising of medical students (N=20), residents (N=68) and fellows (N=17) from the University of Arizona. Subjects were randomized into a simulation training group which received simulation training in addition to didactic teaching (n=53) and a control training group which received didactic teaching alone (n=52). The change in pre and post-test score (delta score) was analyzed by a two-way ANOVA for education status and training arm.ResultsSubjects improved in their post-test scores with a mean change of 4.6 ± 4.0 points. Subjects in the simulation training arm had a higher delta score compared to control (5.4 ± 4.2 versus 3.8 ± 3.7, p=0.04), with greatest impact for residents (6.6 ± 4.0 versus 3.5 ± 3.4) with a p=0.02 for interaction of training arm and education status.ConclusionsSimulation training complements traditional methods to improve CA interpretation skill, with greatest impact on novice trainees. This highlights the importance of incorporating high-fidelity simulation training early in cardiovascular fellowship curricula.

Background: Microvascular dysfunction is known to play a key role in patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease. We investigated the impact of ranolazine among patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease. Methods: In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot trial, 26 patients with angina once weekly or more, abnormal stress test, and nonobstructive coronary artery disease (<50% stenosis by angiography and fractional flow reserve >0.80) were randomized 1:1 to ranolazine or placebo for 12 weeks. Primary end point was ΔSeattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) angina frequency score. Baseline and 3 months follow-up SAQ, Duke Activity Status Index scores along with invasive fractional flow reserve, coronary flow reserve (CFR), hyperemic myocardial resistance, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing measurements were performed. Results: No significant differences in ΔSAQ angina frequency scores ( P =0.53) or Duke Activity Status Index ( P =0.76) were observed between ranolazine versus placebo, although patients on ranolazine had lesser improvement in SAQ physical limitation scores ( P =0.02) compared with placebo at 3 months. There were no significant differences in ΔCFR or Δhyperemic myocardial resistance between ranolazine and placebo groups. Patients treated with ranolazine, compared with placebo, had no significant improvement in maximum rate of oxygen consumption measured during incremental exercise (VO 2 max) and peak metabolic equivalents of task. Interestingly, in the ranolazine group, patients with baseline CFR<2.0 demonstrated greater gain in CFR compared with those with baseline CFR≥2.0 ( P =0.02). Conclusions: Ranolazine did not demonstrate improvement in SAQ angina frequency score, invasive microvascular function, or peak metabolic equivalent compared with placebo at 3 months. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02147067.