cardiology program reviews

[ericthomp83]

I thought i would my impression of some of the programs I interviewed at. It would be great if others could contribute.
Good luck to everyone in the match!



Columbia
Pros
strong structural and interventional cardiology- home of CRF.
Strong structural echo
Probably the best (or second best) program in NYC (if you consider mount Sinai most complete of all NYC programs)
Excellent reputation
Good HF it seemed like

Cons
intense, some attendings came across as too stuck up
other specialty programs not as well developed as interventional (for example for imaging and EP Mount Sinai is better)




Duke

Pros

Every subspecialty is hyper-strong;
very prominent presence in the field of clinical research. Doing a fellowship at DCRI may appeal to people.
Funding available for extra years of research (usual fellowship length is 4-5 years)
Emphasis on producing sub specialists.
Clearly a top 5 program in the country (along lines of Mayo, Cleveland etc)

Cons
Living in Durham- not for everyone
Lot of faculty and fellows, may be hard to shine as expectations are very high
Complex politics among fellows and faculty groups; I did get a somewhat hierarchical and malignant vibe from few fellows.
For the ones who are inclined for private practice, may not be a great fit


Cedars-Sinai

Pros

excellent volume for structural (largest TAVR and mitraclip program in the country) and heart transplant (highest volume center in the US). Did hear rumblings that emphasis is on numbers and not clinical quality.

PD and interviewers seemed nice and collegial

strong CT/nuc

Overall strong reputation on west coast

They have a lot of famous cardiologists (and ranked 4th on US News)

they have a T32 grant to foster research training


Cons

Despite its reputation, the program did not come across as very academic- the PD, chiefs and faculty did try to boost the academic merits of training at Cedars, but very few graduates have taken jobs in academia at major centers.

There is less exposure to bread and butter cardiology at Cedars as it has too many privates. Privates take patients with PPO insurance from ED. Fellows rotate at Kaiser for consults, clinic and cath lab (!!!!). .. This is surprising as Cedars is rated among top interventional labs in the country.

The whole fellowship seems to be built around the Cedars’ heart failure practice. There may be a conflict of interest as the PD and HF director are married (both seemed nice!)

Low ACHD volume

Average EP


Left with mixed feelings after my interview day, as I am interested in being a clinician-educator with emphasis on imaging and possibly ACHD. The only appeal of imaging for me was the option to train in structural cath lab imaging.


UCLA

Pros

Great ACHD and EP programs

Ability to attain level 2 training in echo, nuclear and cath in a 3-year fellowship

Location, location, location!

Fellows seemed to be happy

Multiple sites (VA, Santa Monica etc) ensure that there is enough exposure to bread and butter cardiology. I want to be a better general cardiologist before I can do TAVRs, ACHD etc.

STAR pathway prolongs fellowship by 2-3 years but ensures enough protected research time, able to get MPH/PhD during fellowship

In terms of academic reputation for cardiology UCLA > Cedars, USC

PD Karol Watson was very personable and would be a great mentor

Affiliation with VA (VA was previously with Cedars)


Cons

Atmosphere can be a little malignant, too much politics

Low interventional numbers at Raegan

Average imaging

heart failure not as strong as it used to be (trying to make a come-back)

Attendings and fellows appeared overworked



UCSF

Pros

Great EP, ACHD and PH programs, very strong echo lab

Very strong academic reputation

Between the 3 sites and Mission Bay campus there are plenty of opportunities for clinical and bench research- all subspecialties of cardiology are well represented.

Has 3 different settings for clinical training (VA, county-SFGH, Moffit- quaternary level medicine). The sites compliment each other well (for example cath numbers at Moffitt are low; however fellows get great diagnostic cath training at SFGH and VA).

Strong representation of women in faculty

Faculty seemed to be very supportive and nice (unlike few big east coast places I looked at).

Great interface with tech industry in SF

Few graduates have gone on to avant garde career paths like tech and finance. Most trainees pursue traditional academic and private practice routes.

Able to get level 2 cath, echo and nuclear in 3 year fellowship.



Cons

Low interventional and transplant volume- Stanford beats them here. Low procedural volume at Moffitt in general (like caths, TEE).

Very busy first year (almost 60-70 home calls)

First two years are very busy (3rd year is all elective is a big pro)


Lot of emphasis is on ‘learning by doing’ and didactics in fellowship are few

Few attendings are hyper-obsessive (AKA perfectionists) and there is too much emphasis on trying to outshine one’s colleagues (competitive atmosphere)


4. UCLA harbor- nice program, county hospital (some lack of resources like very limited 3D echo etc), collegial, did not stand out except for cardiac CT. Graduates are able to match in to better subspecialty fellowships.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cardsguy2017]

Good idea, lots of info around here is outdated, misleading or wrong. Having said that, it would be helpful to be clear with the points being made. What is meant by "strong"? Strong research or clinically? How so? And on what basis is this being made off of? Claims by the program, rumors or hearsay, actual numbers, etc.? Also be wary of comparing subspecialties between programs, one that is "weak" at one program can certainly still be stronger than other programs that have it as its strength.

Also wanted to add a few comments to your reviews. In regards to top 5 program, I wouldn't consider Mayo one of them, duke is a possibility. Cedars' "famous" cardiologists has little bearing on its USnews ranking, and USnews has little to no bearing on fellow training. Lastly, you must be the lucky one to learn of UCLA's clinical volume, I and everyone I've talked to were clueless about that.

 

[EPADHA]

Good idea, lots of info around here is outdated, misleading or wrong. Having said that, it would be helpful to be clear with the points being made. What is meant by "strong"? Strong research or clinically? How so? And on what basis is this being made off of? Claims by the program, rumors or hearsay, actual numbers, etc.? Also be wary of comparing subspecialties between programs, one that is "weak" at one program can certainly still be stronger than other programs that have it as its strength.

Also wanted to add a few comments to your reviews. In regards to top 5 program, I wouldn't consider Mayo one of them, duke is a possibility. Cedars' "famous" cardiologists has little bearing on its USnews ranking, and USnews has little to no bearing on fellow training. Lastly, you must be the lucky one to learn of UCLA's clinical volume, I and everyone I've talked to were clueless about that.

In my short clinical career I have noted that programs change every 3-6 years or so. Hence it would be helpful to have current reviews of cardiology programs. For obvious reasons, I can not review the university program I am based at.

As some one who is based at an major academic medical center (university), we do look at graduates from Mayo and Cleveland favorably. The few people I have interviewed personally seemed to be clinically solid. My impression is that CCF is more hands on for fellows- their trainees tend to be well rounded. Obviously because of the nature of their training program, they will not write NIH grants etc.. Graduates from mayo tend to be more academic and thoughtful than CCF but procedurally average.

I completely second Duke as a top 5 clinical AND research cardiology program. Many of the Boston, NY and east coast heavyweights are not as 'complete' as Duke at the moment.

UCLA,at least at the attending level (if you are a clinician), can be very busy.

Agree with US news rankings not having much bearing on quality of training. Having said that larger centers tend to have more faculty- hence trainees get exposed to different viewpoints. Personally I had interviewed at Cedars almost a decade ago. Although was impressed by the famous cardiologists on faculty, was not 'vowed' by the fellowship. Having well known faculty certainly helps with the 'reputation' score on US News and World Report.

There are quite a few strong clinical training programs in the country that don't get as much love on US news.

 

[lonslow]

BIDMC- EP is great, very solid in most other subspecialties, MRI is especially strong. No transplants(at least none done on site), minimal lvads, so HF is a weakness. But overall great clinical training, good research opportunities, arguably best balanced program in Boston. Good vibe, the attendings and fellows seemed great.

NYU- Vibe and setup seemed very similar to BIDMC, no transplants and weaker HF, other subspecialties seemed pretty balanced, nothing particularly strong or weak.

UPMC- Could not get a good sense of the program, on paper seemed like it could be clinically strong, but all they talked about was their research, which there's plenty of opportunities to go around. Personally didn't get a great vibe from the interviewers or PD.

UW- 3 hospital system, consequently fellows don't seem to interact much. Solid in echo, cath and HF, getting level 2 in nuc seemed questionable. Mentioned they don't necessarily take their own fellows for Interventional, which seemed odd.

UCLA- Nice hospital in great location. Didn't seem clinically robust in particular. It seems the potential to get level 2 echo, cath, nuc is there, but they weren't very forthcoming with that info. Definitely feels like it leans more towards academics/research (touting their STAR program), though they tried to downplay it.

THI (friend went here provided more details)- Clinically heavy program, private practice model/culture, most fellows interested in PP or clinical career, especially interventional. Procedure heavy program, the dept overall sees a lot and does a lot (structural, peripheral, mechanical devices, etc.), fellows participate in everything, autonomy is excellent. Lighter on didactics, more learn by doing. HF and EP are great, high volume echo lab, nuc/ct/mri are relatively normal. Rotate at Texas children's and MD Anderson. Easily level 2 in echo, nuc, cath, with some getting level 3 echo. Not a research/academic culture (though research exists), no residents/students, but fellows emphasized it's not a big deal and nothing like residency, they're not scutted by the hospital and can focus on actual training and meaningful clinical duties. Call is ccu coverage and frontloaded to 1st year, 2nd/3rd year is backup with no weekends. Great vibe, attendings were great, fellows seemed happy and a good, laidback group. Certainly one of the top clinical programs in the country, especially for those interested in PP or clinical career.

Graduates from mayo tend to be more academic and thoughtful than CCF but procedurally average.

I interviewed at Mayo and this seems to align with the vibe I got there, it didn't seem like clinical (at least procedural) autonomy or robustness was particularly high. Certainly smart, knowledgeable fellows there, which can be said of many programs in the country though, however the distinction you make between CCF and mayo is not a matter of ability (i.e. knowledge) to be academic or thoughtful, but rather an interest in doing so, imo. It's a good example of the general difference in mindset between those interested in academics vs clinical (private practice).

 

[MyTachyBradyHeart]

I have re-organized the programs by state and added on a few more in bold:

CA
1. Cedars-Sinai
Pros
-excellent volume for structural (largest TAVR and mitraclip program in the country) and heart transplant (highest volume center in the US). Did hear rumblings that emphasis is on numbers and not clinical quality.
-PD and interviewers seemed nice and collegial
-strong CT/nuc
-Overall strong reputation on west coast
-They have a lot of famous cardiologists (and ranked 4th on US News)
-they have a T32 grant to foster research training

Cons
-Despite its reputation, the program did not come across as very academic- the PD, chiefs and faculty did try to boost the academic merits of training at Cedars, but very few graduates have taken jobs in academia at major centers.
-There is less exposure to bread and butter cardiology at Cedars as it has too many privates. Privates take patients with PPO insurance from ED. Fellows rotate at Kaiser for consults, clinic and cath lab (!!!!). .. This is surprising as Cedars is rated among top interventional labs in the country.
-The whole fellowship seems to be built around the Cedars’ heart failure practice. There may be a conflict of interest as the PD and HF director are married (both seemed nice!)
-Low ACHD volume
-Average EP

2. UCLA
Pros
-Great ACHD and EP programs
-Ability to attain level 2 training in echo, nuclear and cath in a 3-year fellowship
-Location, location, location!
-Fellows seemed to be happy
-Multiple sites (VA, Santa Monica etc) ensure that there is enough exposure to bread and butter cardiology. I want to be a better general cardiologist before I can do TAVRs, ACHD etc.
-STAR pathway prolongs fellowship by 2-3 years but ensures enough protected research time, able to get MPH/PhD during fellowship
-In terms of academic reputation for cardiology UCLA > Cedars, USC
-PD Karol Watson was very personable and would be a great mentor
-Affiliation with VA (VA was previously with Cedars)

Cons
Atmosphere can be a little malignant, too much politics
Low interventional numbers at Raegan
Average imaging
heart failure not as strong as it used to be (trying to make a come-back)
Attendings and fellows appeared overworked

Nice hospital in great location. Didn't seem clinically robust in particular. It seems the potential to get level 2 echo, cath, nuc is there, but they weren't very forthcoming with that info. Definitely feels like it leans more towards academics/research (touting their STAR program), though they tried to downplay it.

3. UCSF
Pros
-Great EP, ACHD and PH programs, very strong echo lab
-Very strong academic reputation
-Between the 3 sites and Mission Bay campus there are plenty of opportunities for clinical and bench research- all subspecialties of cardiology are well represented.
-Has 3 different settings for clinical training (VA, county-SFGH, Moffit- quaternary level medicine). The sites compliment each other well (for example cath numbers at Moffitt are low; however fellows get great diagnostic cath training at SFGH and VA).
-Strong representation of women in faculty
-Faculty seemed to be very supportive and nice (unlike few big east coast places I looked at).
-Great interface with tech industry in SF
-Few graduates have gone on to avant garde career paths like tech and finance. Most trainees pursue traditional academic and private practice routes.
-Able to get level 2 cath, echo and nuclear in 3 year fellowship.

Cons
Low interventional and transplant volume- Stanford beats them here. Low procedural volume at Moffitt in general (like caths, TEE).
Very busy first year (almost 60-70 home calls)
First two years are very busy (3rd year is all elective is a big pro)
Lot of emphasis is on ‘learning by doing’ and didactics in fellowship are few
Few attendings are hyper-obsessive (AKA perfectionists) and there is too much emphasis on trying to outshine one’s colleagues (competitive atmosphere)

4. UCLA harbor- nice program, county hospital (some lack of resources like very limited 3D echo etc), collegial, did not stand out except for cardiac CT. Graduates are able to match in to better subspecialty fellowships.

5. Stanford
Pros
- Strong academic reputation
- Great opportunities for research and collaboration with industry
- Very strong ACHD and HF programs
- Faculty and fellows were all very,very happy
- Has housing stipend and money for moving expenses

Cons
- Even with high salary and above perks, cost of living is still very high. Difficult for starting a family
- Smaller hospital, clinical volume is lower
- 2+2 setup
- Mission is to train academic physicians, may not be for someone who wants to be a great clinician
- Dept does not pay for your getting an additional degree such as MPH,MSCI

MA
1. BIDMC- EP is great, very solid in most other subspecialties, MRI is especially strong. No transplants(at least none done on site), minimal lvads, so HF is a weakness. But overall great clinical training, good research opportunities, arguably best balanced program in Boston. Good vibe, the attendings and fellows seemed great.

MD
1. Hopkins
Pros
- It's Hopkins
- Solid training overall, fantastic CCU experience
- Fellows were all down-to-earth, very diverse
- Interviewers were all very nice. Dr. Schulman was awesome
- Very affordable city to live in
- It's Hopkins

Cons
- Clinical heart failure needs a lot of work. UPDATED: HF program is back up and running. Will be robust in a few years but for the next cycle or two, won't offer as strong of clinical training as other programs
- Not for someone who wants to be a great clinician
- Baltimore can be very dangerous, may not be great for starting a family

2. UMD - smaller more clinical program, gets the transplants so clinical heart failure > Hopkins. Fellows had good hands-on experience in cath. Not for someone who wants an academic career as an interviewer pretty much said we don't train academicians.

MO
1. Wash U
Pros
- Strong clinical volume and academic reputation
- Strong heart failure, couldn't get a sense of the other subspecialties
- Fellows were nice and down-to-earth, but only met a few of them
- Dr. Mann and Dr. Katz were fantastic, leadership seemed very invested in fellows
- Very affordable city to live in
- Has flexible 3/4yr curriculum with opportunity to get MPH,MSCI,etc at no additional cost

Cons
- St. Louis is not the most fun city to live in
- ACHD could use a bit more work
- Would have liked to meet a few more fellows on interview day

NC
1. Duke
Pros
Every subspecialty is hyper-strong;
very prominent presence in the field of clinical research. Doing a fellowship at DCRI may appeal to people.
Funding available for extra years of research (usual fellowship length is 4-5 years)
Emphasis on producing sub specialists.
Clearly a top 5 program in the country (along lines of Mayo, Cleveland etc)
Cons
Living in Durham- not for everyone
Lot of faculty and fellows, may be hard to shine as expectations are very high
Complex politics among fellows and faculty groups; I did get a somewhat hierarchical and malignant vibe from few fellows.
For the ones who are inclined for private practice, may not be a great fit

NY
1. Columbia
Pros
strong structural and interventional cardiology- home of CRF.
Strong structural echo
Probably the best (or second best) program in NYC (if you consider mount Sinai most complete of all NYC programs)
Excellent reputation
Good HF it seemed like

Cons
-intense, some attendings came across as too stuck up
other specialty programs not as well developed as interventional (for example for imaging and EP Mount Sinai is better)
-Left with mixed feelings after my interview day, as I am interested in being a clinician-educator with emphasis on imaging and possibly ACHD. The only appeal of imaging for me was the option to train in structural cath lab imaging.

2. NYU- Vibe and setup seemed very similar to BIDMC, no transplants and weaker HF, other subspecialties seemed pretty balanced, nothing particularly strong or weak.

3. Sinai
Pros
- Clinically rigorous, standout interventional program
- Strong academic reputation
- Fellows were all down-to-earth
- Great location, has subsidized housing
- Has 2 tracks: clinical track fellows spend 30-40% of their total time at Elmhurst hospital, a county hospital where you take a lot of STEMI calls but has great hands-on experience esp in cath. Academic track fellows are based mainly at Sinai and rotate at Bronx VA. Has 2 pathways with a 3yr clinical and 4yr academic pathway
- Valentin Fuster

Cons
- A LOT of egos
- Heart failure could use a bit more work
- Cost of living is high, difficult for starting family

4. Cornell - not much to say from my standpoint. Solid program, nothing really stood out aside from the obvious great location but high cost of living. Dr. Jones was very nice.

5. Albert Einstein/Monte
Pros
- Underrated program, strong clinical volume with exposure to tertiary and city hospitals
- Strong heart failure program
- More opportunities for research than expected
- Fellows were all very nice and down-to-earth
- Living in the Bronx is more affordable

Cons
- Faculty interviewers came across as a bit condescending
- Lunch was sad
- Bronx is not Manhattan

PA
1. UPMC- Could not get a good sense of the program, on paper seemed like it could be clinically strong, but all they talked about was their research, which there's plenty of opportunities to go around. Personally didn't get a great vibe from the interviewers or PD.

TN
1. Vanderbilt
Pros
- High clinical volume, 2nd largest transplant center in US
- Recruited a lot of faculty from Boston recently, EP is now very strong with Bill Stevenson
- Fellows were nice and down-to-earth
- PD and APD are both women
- Has many T32s
- Nashville is fun

Cons
- Fellows don't tend to stay on for faculty
- Institution and faculty lack diversity
- Imaging and ACHD could use a bit more work
- Nashville is quite expensive to live in

TX
1. THI (friend went here provided more details)- Clinically heavy program, private practice model/culture, most fellows interested in PP or clinical career, especially interventional. Procedure heavy program, the dept overall sees a lot and does a lot (structural, peripheral, mechanical devices, etc.), fellows participate in everything, autonomy is excellent. Lighter on didactics, more learn by doing. HF and EP are great, high volume echo lab, nuc/ct/mri are relatively normal. Rotate at Texas children's and MD Anderson. Easily level 2 in echo, nuc, cath, with some getting level 3 echo. Not a research/academic culture (though research exists), no residents/students, but fellows emphasized it's not a big deal and nothing like residency. Call is ccu coverage and frontloaded to 1st year, 2nd/3rd year is backup with no weekends. Great vibe, attendings were great, fellows seemed happy and a good, laidback group. Certainly one of the top clinical programs in the country, especially for those interested in PP or clinical career.

WA
1. WU - 3 hospital system, consequently fellows don't seem to interact much. Solid in echo, cath and HF, getting level 2 in nuc seemed questionable. Mentioned they don't necessarily take their own fellows for Interventional, which seemed odd.