- Joined
- Dec 6, 2019
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 5
Goodbye
Last edited:
Cardiology fellowship program reviews. Facts and impressions
- Thread starter NeutralNickName
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2017
- Messages
- 87
- Reaction score
- 32
Volumes are fine and well for marketing or bragging rights, but it can be misleading and ultimately isn't a huge deal. Context and the overall fellowship experience matters much much more. High Tx volumes aren't necessary for most fellows and can be detrimental if the program leans toward their HF dept. Moreover, Lvad exposure matters too as does non-surgical HF care. PCI volume doesn't mean much unless you're going into interventional, or if autonomy is lacking or if you're not learning medical management. And it doesn't nearly account for the wealth of other interventional procedures that can be useful to learn. And then none of this matters if you don't get exposed to it because you're doing research, doing hospital scut, overworked or just not allowed to participate. I know folks who've had those very complaints despite going to well-regarded programs.
Program impressions are rather vague, like they usually are. I'm not sure you can compare "excellent" vs "strong" and it's not clear what's being referred to, research? Volume? Or actual clinical experience? For example, what made UCLA hf go from excellent to just strong?
Also, to verify your facts, THI is indeed doing Tx, they've done 22 so far this year link. Also, Kaiser LA, SC and SF have some of the highest PCI volumes in CA link.
Program impressions are rather vague, like they usually are. I'm not sure you can compare "excellent" vs "strong" and it's not clear what's being referred to, research? Volume? Or actual clinical experience? For example, what made UCLA hf go from excellent to just strong?
Also, to verify your facts, THI is indeed doing Tx, they've done 22 so far this year link. Also, Kaiser LA, SC and SF have some of the highest PCI volumes in CA link.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2019
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 5
Thanks for suggestions. I did include THI transplant volume as 13 according to SRTR so that it's directly comparable to others.
UCLA lost significant part of HF team to Cedars years ago which probably made Cedars current powerhouse. That's the very reason for excellent > strong transition.
I'm sure Kaiser LA, SC and SF are great programs, but I am not aware of anyone who actually visited them.
Subjective classification is merely based on impression of clinical training.
Please beware that these are only another datapoint. Physicians can make entirely different decisions even when presented the same facts/findings/labs/imaging etc. I'm sure you see it in your professional life or with people around you. Everyone should make the best decision for themselves after considering all factors.
Please share with the community what you mean by "And then none of this matters if you don't get exposed to it because you're doing research, doing hospital scut, overworked or just not allowed to participate. I know folks who've had those very complaints despite going to well-regarded programs" so that residents looking for guidance can make informed decisions.
To me, only utility of these numbers is the fact that it sets the bar of what one can actually achieve. Again, you can't perform 500 PCIs if a program is actually doing 400 a year. It's simply not possible.
UCLA lost significant part of HF team to Cedars years ago which probably made Cedars current powerhouse. That's the very reason for excellent > strong transition.
I'm sure Kaiser LA, SC and SF are great programs, but I am not aware of anyone who actually visited them.
Subjective classification is merely based on impression of clinical training.
Please beware that these are only another datapoint. Physicians can make entirely different decisions even when presented the same facts/findings/labs/imaging etc. I'm sure you see it in your professional life or with people around you. Everyone should make the best decision for themselves after considering all factors.
Please share with the community what you mean by "And then none of this matters if you don't get exposed to it because you're doing research, doing hospital scut, overworked or just not allowed to participate. I know folks who've had those very complaints despite going to well-regarded programs" so that residents looking for guidance can make informed decisions.
To me, only utility of these numbers is the fact that it sets the bar of what one can actually achieve. Again, you can't perform 500 PCIs if a program is actually doing 400 a year. It's simply not possible.
Last edited:
D
deleted980918
Just to add onto the list
Jefferson: located in the good area of philly, surprisingly low cost of living compare to other major cities, has everything but low cath volume (i think around 400 from I remembered), 2 fellows/year are from the abington, competition with UPenn is very real, getting more patients now after drexel closed down.
Northwell (Manhasset program): very robust and upcoming program in the NYC after columbia/sinai/cornell/nyu, Northshore and LIJ combined for >3200 PCI last year which would put it near the top of the list as far as volume is concerned, the main hospital is referrals from all of its community programs ( 20 and growing), very busy program even with 9 fellows/year, excellent job opportunities on the east coast, no structural fellow yet and interventional fellows heavily involved with structural cases which leaves a lot of room for general fellow to do.
Montefiore: 11 fellows/year, takes 2 inhouse from the montefiore IM and 2-3 from the jacobi IM program/year, very very busy, hospital itself is dated but good exposure to a variety of pathologies, good research ouput and excellent house staff which can be very helpful when you are on call, bronx is bronx but a significant number of the fellows actually live in manhanttan
Jefferson: located in the good area of philly, surprisingly low cost of living compare to other major cities, has everything but low cath volume (i think around 400 from I remembered), 2 fellows/year are from the abington, competition with UPenn is very real, getting more patients now after drexel closed down.
Northwell (Manhasset program): very robust and upcoming program in the NYC after columbia/sinai/cornell/nyu, Northshore and LIJ combined for >3200 PCI last year which would put it near the top of the list as far as volume is concerned, the main hospital is referrals from all of its community programs ( 20 and growing), very busy program even with 9 fellows/year, excellent job opportunities on the east coast, no structural fellow yet and interventional fellows heavily involved with structural cases which leaves a lot of room for general fellow to do.
Montefiore: 11 fellows/year, takes 2 inhouse from the montefiore IM and 2-3 from the jacobi IM program/year, very very busy, hospital itself is dated but good exposure to a variety of pathologies, good research ouput and excellent house staff which can be very helpful when you are on call, bronx is bronx but a significant number of the fellows actually live in manhanttan
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2017
- Messages
- 87
- Reaction score
- 32
I'm aware of UCLA-Cedars move, but that was years ago and they can and did rebuild the program as do many other hospitals when a group leaves. What made them excellent then but not now? Research? Volume? Outcomes? If it's volume, ok, maybe they're not doing quite as many tx but I'm not sure that's a viable way to evaluate a HF dept or cardiac dept overall. Last I heard, LA hospitals don't really do as many VADs so that's a consideration too.
Tx is market dependent and I doubt tx volume makes a huge difference in general fellows experience. It's just as important being a major referral center that offers of a wealth of services, surgeries, etc. Tx centers and "sick" patients can vary depending on location, hospital, etc. Ultimately, folks I know who went to someplace like BI or other non-tx hospital, are still very good cardiologists and happy with their training.
Fellows could be doing 6mo of research instead of cases, or getting level 2/3, etc. Hospital can have non-teaching attendings, cath volumes are hospital dependent not program dependent. Volume could be under/overreported. Or if numbers are "routine" caths as opposed to complex patients, anatomy, previous surgeries, etc. Even then fellows can be 2nd operator until 3rd year, or gen fellows aren't exposed to interventions or other types of procedures, compete with IR, surgery, etc. for things.
Scut or busy-ness can eat into procedure time or learning and it just kills morale. You can be "busy" as primary on CCU or HF service, taking care of non-cards issues, busy managing interns or being the hospitals consult monkey. It's interesting to notice why some programs need 12 fellows while others get by with 6, or why some fellows regularly stay for advanced fellowship while others leave or do gen cards. I heard of a program not guarantee subspecialty spots for their fellows because they wanted the best applicants out there.
Just some food for thought instead of just looking at the numbers. Apply broadly, interview, talk to fellows, see things for yourself, form your own opinion. Take SDN reviews with a grain of salt. There's no shortage of misinformation on the interview trail.
Last edited:
These volumes should be taken with grain of salt as various training programs may have more than one training facility. For example NYU's IC fellowship has Bellevue (~400 cases per year extrapolated from NY public reporting from 2013-2015)+Tisch (2040 PCI)+VA (case number ?) and Northwell's IC fellowship volume is closer to 3614 PCI (NSUH+LIJ), which would make it the highest volume training program.
Very useful thread and posts.
Here are my impressions after this interview season. Obviously I did not interview at all of these places but this is what I have gathered by combining places where I went to and places where my co-residents went to
Reputation for Academics: BWH, Hopkins, MGH, UPenn, Columbia, NW, WashU, Duke, Vandy, Yale, Mayo, UCSF, UCLA, UPMC, Stanford, BIDMC, UTSW, UW
Reputation for Private practice: Cleveland Clinic, Northwell, Sinai, NYU, Cornell, Emory, Cedars, Colorado, THI, Medstar
Best overall clinical training (having everything in high volume and attending to teach without so much scutwork): Columbia, Yale, Cleveland Clinic, UW, Colorado, Vandy, Cedars, Emory, THI, Henry Ford, NYU, Medstar
Best locations (ok I am biased towards the coasts): UCSD, UCSF, Cedars, UCLA, UW, Colorado, MGH, BWH, BIDMC, Tufts, MSinai, NYU, U Miami
Most Benign Fellowships/Happiest fellows: Duke, Mayo, Vandy, UW, UPMC, BIDMC
Best for Clinical Research: BWH, BIDMC, Columbia, Sinai, NYU, Yale, Vandy, UW, UTSW, NW, Penn
Best for Translational/Basic Research: Hopkins, MGH, BWH, Vandy, Wash U, UTSW, NW, Penn, Stanford, UCLA
Now for exposure during general fellowship (not better subspecialty training if you end up being a super fellow there, but exposure during the 3 years of general cardiology fellowship):
EP: Penn, Hopkins, Sinai, Cornell, Michigan
Interventional: Columbia, Northwell, Yale, Emory, Sinai, Cedars, Cleveland Clinic, Medstar, Beaumont, Henry Ford
HF: Columbia, Tufts, Montefiore/Einstein, Vandy, Cedars, Stanford, Emory, Duke, Utah, UW
Imaging: Cornell (CT/MRI), Columbia (Structural), Emory (Structural), Penn
Nuclear: Ok, I was not paying attention here
Vascular Medicine/endovascular: Columbia, Emory, MGH, Yale, Brown, THI, Colorado
Women Health: Hopkins, UPMC, Cornell, Harvard Hospitals, Vandy, UW
Needless to say that I forget many programs. Please feel free to suggest more
Congrats to everyone who matched and good luck to future applicants for next year!
Here are my impressions after this interview season. Obviously I did not interview at all of these places but this is what I have gathered by combining places where I went to and places where my co-residents went to
Reputation for Academics: BWH, Hopkins, MGH, UPenn, Columbia, NW, WashU, Duke, Vandy, Yale, Mayo, UCSF, UCLA, UPMC, Stanford, BIDMC, UTSW, UW
Reputation for Private practice: Cleveland Clinic, Northwell, Sinai, NYU, Cornell, Emory, Cedars, Colorado, THI, Medstar
Best overall clinical training (having everything in high volume and attending to teach without so much scutwork): Columbia, Yale, Cleveland Clinic, UW, Colorado, Vandy, Cedars, Emory, THI, Henry Ford, NYU, Medstar
Best locations (ok I am biased towards the coasts): UCSD, UCSF, Cedars, UCLA, UW, Colorado, MGH, BWH, BIDMC, Tufts, MSinai, NYU, U Miami
Most Benign Fellowships/Happiest fellows: Duke, Mayo, Vandy, UW, UPMC, BIDMC
Best for Clinical Research: BWH, BIDMC, Columbia, Sinai, NYU, Yale, Vandy, UW, UTSW, NW, Penn
Best for Translational/Basic Research: Hopkins, MGH, BWH, Vandy, Wash U, UTSW, NW, Penn, Stanford, UCLA
Now for exposure during general fellowship (not better subspecialty training if you end up being a super fellow there, but exposure during the 3 years of general cardiology fellowship):
EP: Penn, Hopkins, Sinai, Cornell, Michigan
Interventional: Columbia, Northwell, Yale, Emory, Sinai, Cedars, Cleveland Clinic, Medstar, Beaumont, Henry Ford
HF: Columbia, Tufts, Montefiore/Einstein, Vandy, Cedars, Stanford, Emory, Duke, Utah, UW
Imaging: Cornell (CT/MRI), Columbia (Structural), Emory (Structural), Penn
Nuclear: Ok, I was not paying attention here
Vascular Medicine/endovascular: Columbia, Emory, MGH, Yale, Brown, THI, Colorado
Women Health: Hopkins, UPMC, Cornell, Harvard Hospitals, Vandy, UW
Needless to say that I forget many programs. Please feel free to suggest more
Congrats to everyone who matched and good luck to future applicants for next year!
Ha! The age-old debate about places with very high clinical volumes being considered more desirable fellowships. I think training at a place with high procedural volumes has its distinct merits. But as some one who has first hand seen few of the high volume places on west coast.. i will say that the ‘quality’ at times in high-volume places is missing. There needs to be a happy medium between high volume and great teaching. Programs that are great at the first part may not be great at the second part..
For example, Cedars is great for heart transplant training due to their high numbers- but there is more to HF than transplant.
For example, Cedars is great for heart transplant training due to their high numbers- but there is more to HF than transplant.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2019
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 5
Great to hear all thoughtful comments! Let's keep adding on more to create a fellowship program encyclopedia for future applicants.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2010
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 28
I would just corroborate the words notoriously malignant in the original post based on word of mouth from others who I trust greatly - this is not a phrase to be taken lightly. If you are doing general cardiology with eventual plans to pursue IC, or another advanced fellowship, carefully examine whether fellows stay at their home program for advanced fellowship (even if that program is well reputed or has a reputation for "high volumes"). We are all in our mid 30s with families; it takes a lot to move. Most people stay if the internal advanced fellowship is average or better. Folks I know who are moving outside of their home program (or more importantly city/region) to pursue advanced training are doing so due to internal malignancy or gross deficiencies. It's unrealistic to expect an honest assessment from a heavily leveraged 2nd or 3rd year fellow during your interview day, so take a look at the match list and let their feet do the talking. My program is incredibly benign, and all of us stay, even in areas that are not "top rated."
Clinical powerhouses - Cleveland Clinic (an overkill experience, high volume, good in all areas, you better be ready to work but not malignant, know people here who love it but they have disdain for laziness), Ohio State(high volume, EP powerhouse), Michigan (awesome place, solid cath, well balanced general cardiology training, solid cath, EP powerhouse), CEDARS Sinai in LA (high volume IC, HF/TXP powerhouse), Vanderbilt (HF/TXP powerhouse, high volume IC, have poached all the famous EP attendings from the Brigham, heard great things), Emory (well balanced transplant, HF, IC, EP), UAB (high volume), Methodist (rising star in Houston), THI (interventional place to be, no EP fellowship, avoid for HF/TXP).
Programs with academic pressure but solid clinical volume and routinely produce private practice doctors - Columbia (benign and balanced, best areas are advanced HF and IC), Duke (benign and balanced, best area is advanced HF), Penn (benign general fellowship, malignant but high volume EP training, low volume cath), WashU (benign and balanced with solid subspecialty training), UW, Mayo (incredible imaging), UTSW, UCSD, Tufts, Yale
Traditional academic programs (Stop reading Echos - how is your K23 proposal going?) - JHU (benign, no advanced HF, no IC volume, great EP), Brigham (benign, no IC volume, great EP), MGH (academically unparalleled, OK advanced HF, OK IC, scutted out EP fellows), UCSF (high workload, no IC volume, great EP) Stanford (benign, no volume across subspecialties, super elite academically)
Clinical powerhouses - Cleveland Clinic (an overkill experience, high volume, good in all areas, you better be ready to work but not malignant, know people here who love it but they have disdain for laziness), Ohio State(high volume, EP powerhouse), Michigan (awesome place, solid cath, well balanced general cardiology training, solid cath, EP powerhouse), CEDARS Sinai in LA (high volume IC, HF/TXP powerhouse), Vanderbilt (HF/TXP powerhouse, high volume IC, have poached all the famous EP attendings from the Brigham, heard great things), Emory (well balanced transplant, HF, IC, EP), UAB (high volume), Methodist (rising star in Houston), THI (interventional place to be, no EP fellowship, avoid for HF/TXP).
Programs with academic pressure but solid clinical volume and routinely produce private practice doctors - Columbia (benign and balanced, best areas are advanced HF and IC), Duke (benign and balanced, best area is advanced HF), Penn (benign general fellowship, malignant but high volume EP training, low volume cath), WashU (benign and balanced with solid subspecialty training), UW, Mayo (incredible imaging), UTSW, UCSD, Tufts, Yale
Traditional academic programs (Stop reading Echos - how is your K23 proposal going?) - JHU (benign, no advanced HF, no IC volume, great EP), Brigham (benign, no IC volume, great EP), MGH (academically unparalleled, OK advanced HF, OK IC, scutted out EP fellows), UCSF (high workload, no IC volume, great EP) Stanford (benign, no volume across subspecialties, super elite academically)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2019
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 5
Updated the list with what's publicly available. Unfortunately, no direct or indirect experience with the program. Also hoping to hear more from others!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Messages
- 731
- Reaction score
- 195
Thanks a lot, very much appreciated. Numbers are better than expected.
Curious to also hear more thoughts about Pitt. UPMC seems like an under rated program compared to all the coastal heavy weights.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2019
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 5
Thanks! Received several DMs from current/past fellows who train/ed at programs on the list, and it's reassuring to hear that these impressions reflect current state of affairs.
D
deleted980918
They are the same program but gets funding from two different sources and that’s why there are two listed is what I gathered. I’m not a fellow there so I could be wrong.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2012
- Messages
- 409
- Reaction score
- 349
Numbers are meaningless without context. You get credit for a heart cath by being in the room essentially. True experience / skill comes from having the opportunity to struggle. Having the opportunity to engage and wire .... over and over....
It is all about balance and unfortunately medical education is a game. Everyone puts on a smile for the interview and every program tries their best to attract candidates.
It is all about balance and unfortunately medical education is a game. Everyone puts on a smile for the interview and every program tries their best to attract candidates.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 10
Agreed, and there is definitely a sweet spot. Sometimes too much volume means that the attendings are pressured to get through cases and don't give you much time to struggle and learn. Sometimes it's different based on the subspecialty (cath vs EP vs structural).
Ask the fellows about it on interviews (assuming you have time to talk with them in the virtual setup). I always tell the applicants what's up and I think most fellows do the same. The PDs will obviously talk up everything but fellows are usually honest.
Ask the fellows about it on interviews (assuming you have time to talk with them in the virtual setup). I always tell the applicants what's up and I think most fellows do the same. The PDs will obviously talk up everything but fellows are usually honest.
D
deleted980918
Totally agree. In my cath rotation day 1 I was standing next to the cath lab director getting access and trying to engage (failed). At another NYC program interview tour, I saw the attending sitting in the control room, there were 2 IC fellows, a gen card fellow and another fellow doing away rotation in the room.
foreverhousestaff
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
Can anyone speak to the strengths and weaknesses of UCLA, UCSD, Harbor, Kaiser LA, and Scripps
You legit posted in multiple threads fishing for an answer.
UCLA- strong all around. good community cath exposure. house-staff cover most services, you play consultant/advisor.
UCSD- strong all around. strong HF program. fellow driven. you cover services as first to call.
Harbor- less academic. good "community" program. less access to advanced HF. hands on cath. budoff with lots of CT.
Kaiser LA- good if you want to stay in the kaiser system. Kaiser LA, specifically, has a good gig going if you can land a job there. med school opening up. unclear access to advanced HF; you probably know better.
Scripps- so you want to be an interventionalist? nice hybrid academic/community program.
UCLA and UCSD are clearly best of the bunch if you want to stay in academics. UCSD will arguably give you a better clinical experience. UCLA will give you more opportunities to be academic.
Last edited:
Are you a current applicant? What did YOU think of the programs? They all have strengths/weaknesses, particular vibe/culture, etc. What are your goals? Where do you fit? Where do you wanna live? I know folks who've graduated from any of those programs and they are solid cardiologists. Also, add that Kaiser LA has some of the highest cath volumes in the State, take it for what it's worth.
foreverhousestaff
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
And I have no shame about it 🙂. Thank you!
Some shout outs for programs I was impressed by:
Brigham: Incredible structure for mentorship, faculty in literally anything you could want to do research in. Not as great clinical exposure. You can get level II training in maybe one thing. But you get to train with the people who set the guidelines. Paradise for someone who wants to eventually be an academic leader anywhere in the country.
Duke: Very strong clinical and research exposure, and seems to be a very well rounded program. Most call is during CCU months. Ongoing changes in DCRI, but this likely won't affect fellows quite as much.
Columbia: Great opportunities for research if you're willing to put in the legwork to find the right mentor for you. Great exposure to all things cardiology, you learn a lot on call, but there are MANY subspecialty fellows, so you don't necessarily get to do as much in the cath lab from what the fellows say. Most get level II in echo if you're willing to put in a couple of months during third or fourth year, but that's about it. Can choose a 3 or 4 year program based on how much research you want to do. Strong in IC and HF, not as strong in imaging or EP.
Cedars-Sinai: If you want to go into private practice this place is amazing. High volume, great location, and you can get some experience at Kaiser too.
Stanford: I was very impressed by this program and will write a bit more about them because there isn't quite as much on SDN. They are actually quite clinically rigorous, and the volumes of what is seen (both at the main campus and the VA) seem to have expanded quite a bit since earlier posts. Many fellows get level II training in multiple areas (or level III), there is strong support for excelling in research efforts if that's your interest, and the interdisciplinary collaboration is excellent for anyone interested in unique collaborations or entrepreneurship. They seem to pride themselves on excellent clinical care + cutting edge innovation and research. Because you train at both the main campus and the VA, as fellows you get to do a lot. Even though total volume seen at the institution is not as high as others on the list just remember that as a fellow you won't be scrubbed into every PCI or taking care of every HT anyway...you need enough/plenty, but you don't need thousands. Seems like the perfect place if you're the kind of doctor who wants to be both "a doctor and a ______" (researcher, entrepreneur, clinical leader, etc.).
UTSW: This is such an up and coming program, I was very impressed. They are the home of circulation, have recruited great people from a number of different institutions, and have such a diversity of clinical exposure because of the 3 clinical sites fellows rotate at (including Parkland).
There are others great programs of course, but these are a few that stood out.
Brigham: Incredible structure for mentorship, faculty in literally anything you could want to do research in. Not as great clinical exposure. You can get level II training in maybe one thing. But you get to train with the people who set the guidelines. Paradise for someone who wants to eventually be an academic leader anywhere in the country.
Duke: Very strong clinical and research exposure, and seems to be a very well rounded program. Most call is during CCU months. Ongoing changes in DCRI, but this likely won't affect fellows quite as much.
Columbia: Great opportunities for research if you're willing to put in the legwork to find the right mentor for you. Great exposure to all things cardiology, you learn a lot on call, but there are MANY subspecialty fellows, so you don't necessarily get to do as much in the cath lab from what the fellows say. Most get level II in echo if you're willing to put in a couple of months during third or fourth year, but that's about it. Can choose a 3 or 4 year program based on how much research you want to do. Strong in IC and HF, not as strong in imaging or EP.
Cedars-Sinai: If you want to go into private practice this place is amazing. High volume, great location, and you can get some experience at Kaiser too.
Stanford: I was very impressed by this program and will write a bit more about them because there isn't quite as much on SDN. They are actually quite clinically rigorous, and the volumes of what is seen (both at the main campus and the VA) seem to have expanded quite a bit since earlier posts. Many fellows get level II training in multiple areas (or level III), there is strong support for excelling in research efforts if that's your interest, and the interdisciplinary collaboration is excellent for anyone interested in unique collaborations or entrepreneurship. They seem to pride themselves on excellent clinical care + cutting edge innovation and research. Because you train at both the main campus and the VA, as fellows you get to do a lot. Even though total volume seen at the institution is not as high as others on the list just remember that as a fellow you won't be scrubbed into every PCI or taking care of every HT anyway...you need enough/plenty, but you don't need thousands. Seems like the perfect place if you're the kind of doctor who wants to be both "a doctor and a ______" (researcher, entrepreneur, clinical leader, etc.).
UTSW: This is such an up and coming program, I was very impressed. They are the home of circulation, have recruited great people from a number of different institutions, and have such a diversity of clinical exposure because of the 3 clinical sites fellows rotate at (including Parkland).
There are others great programs of course, but these are a few that stood out.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2019
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 5
Thanks for contributing! Hoping that this thread will continue to serve as the go-to resource for prospective applicants. With that being said, encouraging all graduating residents to convey their impressions while it's relatively fresh and still sort of unbiased.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
- Messages
- 890
- Reaction score
- 1,193
Does anyone have thoughts about UConn/Hartford Hospital? I know UConn's not the biggest academic name and Hartford/Farmington aren't the most exciting places to be, but Hartford Hospital is regarded in the community at least as the place to go for cardiac care so I was wondering if there are any other reasons this program doesn't seem to be as competitive and isn't discussed as much as others.
This seems to be very costal heavy so I would be happy to give my 2 cents. I was a moderately competitive applicant who only applied to midwest programs.
Henry Ford: My biggest surprise of the application season. Really liked HF. Down to earth faculty and fellows. Program director seems very kind and cares a lot about the program. Very advanced in multiple cardiology specialties including interventional/structural and imaging. More clinical focused, not as academic/research heavy. I feel like this would be a great place to train if you are okay with living in Detroit
Cleveland Clinic: Very very impressed by the CC. Fellows seem to love it here based on my interactions on interview day. Great hands on clinical/training, lots of procedures. Heavy in critical care. Less research though most fellows had academic pursuits they were working on. Does seem to live up to the reputation that they will work you HARD during fellowship (but that comes with great training and a very good reputation upon graduation). Most advanced fellowships here appear to be 2 years (interventional and imaging at least)
UH/Case: Much more academic than CC. Spent a lot of the interview talking/asking about research. Less clinical discussion. Fellows seem to like it. Stress that they did not feel overworked (one said he had more free time in fellowship than residency). Fellowship director is longstanding and seems nice. If you are interested in big time academics/research/grants etc this might be a good place for you
UMinn: Fellows were fun and engaging on the pre-interview session. Interview day was actually very short. Program director seems very nice and cares a lot about the program. Heavy critical care (main ECMO center for the area and cardiology is primary on ECMO pts) and AHF. Imaging is solid (Cardiology reads MR). Overall seems like a good program with very good clinical training. Seems a little on the light on academics/research for a university program but you do get some protected research time starting your first year.
Mayo: Very heavy/good in research (third year is research). Lots of support for research pursuits. Less clinical focus. Graduated responsibility (fellows don't take primary call until second year, still not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing). Expected to do advance training, most stay at Mayo. Great imaging. Very good interventional/structural.
Loyola: Heavy clinical. Seems like they work very hard, but get good training. Fellows seemed down to earth and happy. Nothing really stood about this program.
MCW: Super nice PD. Faculty all seem great based on my interaction. They do not seem to get good critical care training (CICU covered by anesthesia). Again nothing really stood out for this program.
Henry Ford: My biggest surprise of the application season. Really liked HF. Down to earth faculty and fellows. Program director seems very kind and cares a lot about the program. Very advanced in multiple cardiology specialties including interventional/structural and imaging. More clinical focused, not as academic/research heavy. I feel like this would be a great place to train if you are okay with living in Detroit
Cleveland Clinic: Very very impressed by the CC. Fellows seem to love it here based on my interactions on interview day. Great hands on clinical/training, lots of procedures. Heavy in critical care. Less research though most fellows had academic pursuits they were working on. Does seem to live up to the reputation that they will work you HARD during fellowship (but that comes with great training and a very good reputation upon graduation). Most advanced fellowships here appear to be 2 years (interventional and imaging at least)
UH/Case: Much more academic than CC. Spent a lot of the interview talking/asking about research. Less clinical discussion. Fellows seem to like it. Stress that they did not feel overworked (one said he had more free time in fellowship than residency). Fellowship director is longstanding and seems nice. If you are interested in big time academics/research/grants etc this might be a good place for you
UMinn: Fellows were fun and engaging on the pre-interview session. Interview day was actually very short. Program director seems very nice and cares a lot about the program. Heavy critical care (main ECMO center for the area and cardiology is primary on ECMO pts) and AHF. Imaging is solid (Cardiology reads MR). Overall seems like a good program with very good clinical training. Seems a little on the light on academics/research for a university program but you do get some protected research time starting your first year.
Mayo: Very heavy/good in research (third year is research). Lots of support for research pursuits. Less clinical focus. Graduated responsibility (fellows don't take primary call until second year, still not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing). Expected to do advance training, most stay at Mayo. Great imaging. Very good interventional/structural.
Loyola: Heavy clinical. Seems like they work very hard, but get good training. Fellows seemed down to earth and happy. Nothing really stood about this program.
MCW: Super nice PD. Faculty all seem great based on my interaction. They do not seem to get good critical care training (CICU covered by anesthesia). Again nothing really stood out for this program.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
Hello ,
Unsure if I am posting on the right group . Does someone have insight above Kaiser LA interventional cards ? How’s the program? Pros and cons ?
Unsure if I am posting on the right group . Does someone have insight above Kaiser LA interventional cards ? How’s the program? Pros and cons ?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2016
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 14
What I’ve noticed is the only thing that matters is name recognition. Nobody cares about volume and exposure when it comes to applying for jobs or advancing your career. Is there a ranking based purely on prestige in the field of cardiology? No relation to how strong the institution is in medicine overall, or how good their medical schools are.. just purely cardiology name recognition.
Would be nice to have a thorough list that includes all the state hospitals as well (the Iowa’s, Virginia’s, Ohio State’s etc.) and not just the Harvard’s and Columbia’s of the world.
Would be nice to have a thorough list that includes all the state hospitals as well (the Iowa’s, Virginia’s, Ohio State’s etc.) and not just the Harvard’s and Columbia’s of the world.
Each institution has its own strength, making it not easy to list them purely based on cardiology name recognition. But I tried my best to classify major institutions.
Tier 1a (world-class; international recognition)
Columbia
Cedars Sinai
CCF
Mount Sinai
BMH
Duke
Tier 1b (These are also top programs)
Stanford
Emory
Mayo
MGH
Tier 2
Vanderbilt
UCLA
Wash U
NW
UTSW
U Michigan
NYU
Tier 3
UW
Yale
U Chicago
Colorado
BIDMC
UCSF
Hopkins
U Penn
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 1,205
- Reaction score
- 780
I think most people already know the research tiers, and somewhat overall tiers as above, but perhaps would be nice to create a list of clinical tiers. At this stage, though, it all depends on what your goals are - don't just follow the name, it can really hurt you.
Here's a start:
Tier 1a
Cleveland Clinic - probably the best clinical program in the world, insane volume (e.g. 10+ pericardiocenteses as a general fellow in 1 CCU month), easily get level 2's across the board, level 3 echo if you want, see every zebra and nuance/permutation possible, can likely obtain any clinical position you want after
Texas Heart Institute - probably the second best clinical program in the country, with the main weakness being imaging, easily get many level 2's but may need to take an elective outside the institution for great CT/MR training
Cedars Sinai - very high volume, brutal schedule, known for interventional dept, easily get many level 2's, arguably best location of the 3
Tier 1b
Vanderbilt - excellent volume, very strong EP/HF, weak to average IC, can get level 2's in many areas
Emory - excellent volume, big focus on IC, can get several level 2's
Duke - excellent volume, among the most balanced programs, no one dept is shoulders above others, can get several level 2's
Northwestern - excellent volume, very strong HF, can get several level 2's
Tier 2
Mount Sinai - great volume but questionable direct primary operator experience on cath as general fellow as huge number of advanced fellows including many IMGs on non-ACGME pathway take priority, crown jewel is IC with Sharma, Fuster sticking around but Bhatt taking over, can get two to three level 2's
UAB - great volume, often overlooked given location, can get several level 2's
Mayo - great volume, more supervision and less autonomy than other programs, seems to focus more on research but the clinical volume is there, home to cardiology board review with legend Rick Nishimura, world-class imaging dept, likely get two level 2's
UCLA - great volume, very supportive of diverse goals including practice, can get many level 2's, the worst CCU call schedule of any program - q2 days
Northwell - great volume, very strong IC, can get many level 2's
Tier 3
Columbia - great volume but PD harps on interview day that fellows will at most graduate with a single level 2 in TTE given amount of research time required, great autonomy and minimal scut, chill cath rotation (e.g. leave by 3-4pm) as advanced fellows get dibs, IC (especially structural, less so coronary), HF (esp transplant), and structural echo are the crown jewels, great congenital, weak to average EP
U Chicago - good volume, overshadowed by NW, can obtain 2-3 level 2's if desired
BIDMC - good volume and the best among the Boston hospitals, EP very strong, can obtain a few level 2's though emphasis is academia
NYU - good volume, work with the city hospital so very underserved population, no particular dept is hyperstrong, can obtain a few level 2's
UPenn - good volume, EP is crown jewel, Silvestry is a bit of an odd personality though very supportive
UMichigan - good volume, EP strong, can obtain two or three level 2's if desired
UTSW - good volume, HF/EP strong, some famous faculty like Packer and Drazner, focus is research not clinical
WashU - good volume, can obtain a few level 2's
Tier 4 - Big Name & Research but Mediocre Clinical
Hopkins - low volume, will not get more than a level 2 in TTE, very weak HF, great CCU, crown jewel is EP, almost all grads go into academia and the few that do not stick around in Maryland/DC area hospital systems
BWH - low volume, will get a single level 2 in TTE, world class EP/imaging departments though low volumes, IC especially weak; great congenital
MGH - better volume than BWH but still low volume (e.g. avg 4-5 consults a day); single level 2 in TTE for most though very flexible with 3rd year and does support fellows who switch and decide they want to practice so possible to perhaps obtain more than a single level 2, underwhelming EP/imaging, okay IC but low volume
UCSF - decent volume but clinical faculty considered far cry from the clinical reputation of its IM program, mostly research focused, likely single level 2 in TTE
Yale - super big emphasis on producing researchers, volume isn't bad but limited by months dedicated to research
Cornell - not really that big of a name, very weak in most dept including no transplants, probably the weakest NYC clinical program by miles, strong CMR
Here's a start:
Tier 1a
Cleveland Clinic - probably the best clinical program in the world, insane volume (e.g. 10+ pericardiocenteses as a general fellow in 1 CCU month), easily get level 2's across the board, level 3 echo if you want, see every zebra and nuance/permutation possible, can likely obtain any clinical position you want after
Texas Heart Institute - probably the second best clinical program in the country, with the main weakness being imaging, easily get many level 2's but may need to take an elective outside the institution for great CT/MR training
Cedars Sinai - very high volume, brutal schedule, known for interventional dept, easily get many level 2's, arguably best location of the 3
Tier 1b
Vanderbilt - excellent volume, very strong EP/HF, weak to average IC, can get level 2's in many areas
Emory - excellent volume, big focus on IC, can get several level 2's
Duke - excellent volume, among the most balanced programs, no one dept is shoulders above others, can get several level 2's
Northwestern - excellent volume, very strong HF, can get several level 2's
Tier 2
Mount Sinai - great volume but questionable direct primary operator experience on cath as general fellow as huge number of advanced fellows including many IMGs on non-ACGME pathway take priority, crown jewel is IC with Sharma, Fuster sticking around but Bhatt taking over, can get two to three level 2's
UAB - great volume, often overlooked given location, can get several level 2's
Mayo - great volume, more supervision and less autonomy than other programs, seems to focus more on research but the clinical volume is there, home to cardiology board review with legend Rick Nishimura, world-class imaging dept, likely get two level 2's
UCLA - great volume, very supportive of diverse goals including practice, can get many level 2's, the worst CCU call schedule of any program - q2 days
Northwell - great volume, very strong IC, can get many level 2's
Tier 3
Columbia - great volume but PD harps on interview day that fellows will at most graduate with a single level 2 in TTE given amount of research time required, great autonomy and minimal scut, chill cath rotation (e.g. leave by 3-4pm) as advanced fellows get dibs, IC (especially structural, less so coronary), HF (esp transplant), and structural echo are the crown jewels, great congenital, weak to average EP
U Chicago - good volume, overshadowed by NW, can obtain 2-3 level 2's if desired
BIDMC - good volume and the best among the Boston hospitals, EP very strong, can obtain a few level 2's though emphasis is academia
NYU - good volume, work with the city hospital so very underserved population, no particular dept is hyperstrong, can obtain a few level 2's
UPenn - good volume, EP is crown jewel, Silvestry is a bit of an odd personality though very supportive
UMichigan - good volume, EP strong, can obtain two or three level 2's if desired
UTSW - good volume, HF/EP strong, some famous faculty like Packer and Drazner, focus is research not clinical
WashU - good volume, can obtain a few level 2's
Tier 4 - Big Name & Research but Mediocre Clinical
Hopkins - low volume, will not get more than a level 2 in TTE, very weak HF, great CCU, crown jewel is EP, almost all grads go into academia and the few that do not stick around in Maryland/DC area hospital systems
BWH - low volume, will get a single level 2 in TTE, world class EP/imaging departments though low volumes, IC especially weak; great congenital
MGH - better volume than BWH but still low volume (e.g. avg 4-5 consults a day); single level 2 in TTE for most though very flexible with 3rd year and does support fellows who switch and decide they want to practice so possible to perhaps obtain more than a single level 2, underwhelming EP/imaging, okay IC but low volume
UCSF - decent volume but clinical faculty considered far cry from the clinical reputation of its IM program, mostly research focused, likely single level 2 in TTE
Yale - super big emphasis on producing researchers, volume isn't bad but limited by months dedicated to research
Cornell - not really that big of a name, very weak in most dept including no transplants, probably the weakest NYC clinical program by miles, strong CMR
Not my experience outside academia. What matters first is who you know and who you are. Probably then followed by reputation or any special skills you have that they need. Its not like employers rank programs or debate OSU vs UCLA. But OSU vs HCA, easy answer. I've seen "impressive" candidates get passed on for the known, connected, local candidate. I agree, volume and exposure are over-rated (especially on SDN) as most programs prepare fellows fine for community practice. Good vs great volumes, level 3 vs 2, weak vs strong, etc. aren't a big deal as it doesn't take much to train a general cardiologist, most of the work is just seeing patients and reading echos/ekgs. Keep in mind the above mentioned programs make up just a fraction of cards grads, and just a fraction of them leave academia. What career advancement are you looking for?
For the community, I would venture to say “big name” places may (likely to a small degree) hurt you more than help only because the #1 factor that hospitals want is no baggage, no ego, no drama, no record.
A Hopkins trained doc applying raises sone questions… why are they applying here? How Will they interact with their Caribbean trained DO partner, etc? Are they going to try and big time admin and other docs?
Second factor is volume and skill set.. and everyone typically understands those name places are often garbage for that with some obvious notable exceptions.
With that said the high volume training places reigns supreme so if you can that’s your best bet. If they have a name to it then all the better
90%+ community jobs just want a BC doc with the cleanest record possible.
A Hopkins trained doc applying raises sone questions… why are they applying here? How Will they interact with their Caribbean trained DO partner, etc? Are they going to try and big time admin and other docs?
Second factor is volume and skill set.. and everyone typically understands those name places are often garbage for that with some obvious notable exceptions.
With that said the high volume training places reigns supreme so if you can that’s your best bet. If they have a name to it then all the better
90%+ community jobs just want a BC doc with the cleanest record possible.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
Any inputs on Kaiser LA for IC ?
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2018
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 3
Good volume. Most graduate with 400-500 cases as primary operator in coronary.
Also get to do structural as well, can graduate with around ~100 TAVRs at least. Exposure to clips as well. No STEMI call
Downsides are limited CTO, shock (eg ad-hoc Impella), few STEMI cases. Also limited use of imaging such as IVUS/OCT.
Location makes finding a decent job in LA (esp within Kaiser system if interested) much easier.
hippomoose
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 3
Is there a discord or spreadsheet for the 2023-2024 application cycle anywhere? Haven't been able to find it.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
What I have heard is STEMI call before 8pm but nothing after that.
homogenous
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2024
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Is this still true today?
