Researchers in cardiology - Why and how to get on Twitter?

Social media (SoMe) for professional use has gained importance for scientific impact. In cardiology, Twitter is among the preferred SoMe platforms for scientific dissemination. We are in the middle of a paradigm shift within scientific dissemination as more scientific content is presented on Twitter, and it is crucial to embrace it. Therefore, this paper includes a description and discussion of the existing literature reporting the impact of Twitter on research dissemination, as well as a guide on how to get started. In addition, we describe a case of the Danish Cardiovascular Academy Summer Meeting 2021 as an example of a scientific event that was promoted on Twitter before, during and after the event and present a survey showing that participants were inspired to increase the use of SoMe professionally. Finally, the paper addresses limitations of Twitter and SoMe for scientific use and discuss a need for an increased evidence base

Cardiac computed tomography-verified right ventricular lead position and outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between different right ventricular (RV) lead positions as assessed by cardiac computed tomography (CT) and echocardiographic and clinical outcomes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).METHODS: We reviewed patient records of all 278 patients included in two randomized controlled trials (ImagingCRT and ElectroCRT) for occurrence of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or all-cause death (primary endpoint) during long-term follow-up. Outcomes were compared between RV lead positions using adjusted Cox regression analysis. Six months after CRT implantation, we estimated left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling by measuring LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes by echocardiography. Changes from baseline to 6 months follow-up were compared between RV lead positions. Device-related complications were recorded at 6-month follow-up.RESULTS: During median (interquartile range) follow-up of 4.7 (2.9-7.1) years, the risk of meeting the primary endpoint was similar for patients with non-apical vs. apical RV lead position (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.12, p = 0.17) and free wall vs. septal RV lead position (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72-1.47, p = 0.86). Changes in LV ejection fraction and dimensions were similar with the different RV lead positions. We observed no differences in device-related complications relative to the RV lead position.CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving CRT, the risk of HF hospitalization or all-cause death during long-term follow-up, and LV remodeling and incidence of device-related complications after 6 months are not associated with different anatomical RV lead position as assessed by cardiac CT.</p