question about west coast programs

[cardio12345]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm trying to find out about West Coast cardio fellowship programs. I obviously understand that the top ones are UCSF, Stanford, UWashington, UCSD, UCLA.

How are the other programs? I hear a lot of good things about the OHSU (Oregon Health Sciences University) program, that it is a program on the rise, and is very solid. I am not sure about some of the other CA programs like UC Irvine, UC Fresno, Harbor UCLA, Loma Linda, Kaiser programs, Scripps? How do these compare? I am from Texas and would like some info on how some of these other programs compare to Texas programs.

If people can come up with some type of ranking lists, let's say for someone interested in an academic career, that would be helpful.
Thanks!

 

[littlecbug]

I wish when I applied there was more info out there on the west coast programs. I interviewed in the past at many of the California programs and have friends at the other ones, so hopefully I can shed some light on this subject.

First, there's no one best program. The way to think about it is what's the "best" for each subspecialty:

California-
Imaging/Non-invasive:
Harbor-UCLA has the best combination of training and exposure for imaging. You can get level 3 certified in nuclear and CT, which is difficult at other programs.

Interventional:
1. Cedars-Sinai: This is a clinical powerhouse program. They do lots of caths, and they let their fellows do a lot.
2. Stanford: Lots of volume, and some big names in cath here.
3. Scripps: Tons and tons of volume. Smaller program.
4. Kaiser-LA. Incredible amounts of cath volume. Most of their felllows go into interventional.

EP:
1. UCSF. Big names in EP here. If you want to do EP, there's no better place.
2. Cedars-Sinai and UCLA.
3. UCSD

CHF:
1. Stanford. Still a well known center for transplant and heart failure. Big names. Good research in this field.
2. Cedars-Sinai. The transplant group moved from UCLA to Cedars. Large, busy CCU. Their LVAD and transplant volume should go way up.
3. UCLA. In rebuilding phase for this division. They will gain ground soon.

I would say UW and OHSU are all around strong programs, with no glaring weaknesses. From a training perspective they are on par with places like Stanford and UCLA, but probably slightly less competitive to match because of location.

Texas Heart and UTSW are top notch programs on par, or better at some things than some of the programs I listed.

I'm trying to find out about West Coast cardio fellowship programs. I obviously understand that the top ones are UCSF, Stanford, UWashington, UCSD, UCLA.

How are the other programs? I hear a lot of good things about the OHSU (Oregon Health Sciences University) program, that it is a program on the rise, and is very solid. I am not sure about some of the other CA programs like UC Irvine, UC Fresno, Harbor UCLA, Loma Linda, Kaiser programs, Scripps? How do these compare? I am from Texas and would like some info on how some of these other programs compare to Texas programs.

If people can come up with some type of ranking lists, let's say for someone interested in an academic career, that would be helpful.
Thanks!

 

[cardio12345]

Thanks for the reply. Can anyone weigh in on some of the other CA programs like UC Irvine, UC Fresno, UC Davis. My understanding is that these are not necessarily "academic" programs. Are there any red flags concerning these programs or other CA programs? What are their strengths/weaknesses?
Thanks again for any info.

 

[indiamacbean]

I would also second OHSU as a great program. I went farther afield but if I was interested in imaging or general cardiology in a super friendly program based in a cool city I would certainly consider it.

I would also say UCSF is good for echo and decent for failure. If you are interested in basic science research it is also tops on the west coast. interventional numbers are low.

 

[NDESTRUKT]

Great thread.

I agree with most of the above comments, although I do not feel OSHU is really that up and coming. I think there is a lot of potential but I feel that there's a lot of disorganization going on there.

UW is a great program but you're required to do alot of research there (but since the OP is interested in an academic career I guess that's fine).

For clinical, Cedars is probably the best program on the West Coast. Great numbers and training in every aspect of cardiology. Harbor-UCLA has great clinical training but I disagree with them being an imaging powerhouse. They have weak echo training and don't have cardiac MRI capabilities.

I would have to say the Kaiser programs are really good - the clinical training is extremely solid with decent fellowship placement afterwards. If one wants to do clinical medicine, Kaiser in LA would be an awesome choice. Kaiser SF is a new program which should have much promise as well.

I did not like Scripps as there is no ED and they barely ever have STEMIs. In addition, the fellow does many admissions and does a lot of intern/resident work (writing notes, H/Ps, etc) - something I have no interest in doing after my 3 years as a resident. I don't think their clinical volume is that high either. They have a lot of huge name people who I think joined the program to slow down their career and transition into retirement.

UCI is a strong interventional program. UC Davis is pretty subpar - they don't even have an EP department really. UC Fresno is also subpar - first of all it's in Fresno, and secondly, their department seems unorganized.

Don't know much about UCSD except JACC is based there. UCLA is definitely a great program and though it lost its transplant group, the loss will be made up soon.

Lastly, USC is an up and coming program which I think will fare extremely well in the future and is extremely busy. Not sure about the teaching and organization since it was almost placed on probation but we'll see.

Hope that helps!

 

[dragonfly99]

UCSF - strong basic research, strong CHF/transplant. I heard they don't have a lot of cath lab volume. I don't know about EP there, but I think there are some big names.
I don't know much about the Kaiser programs.

UCLA - just lost a lot of their transplant docs, but since it's a solid academic place I'm assuming they will recruit others. They do have a 5 year program (3 clinical, 2 clinical research) for fellows who are interested. They cover at least a couple of hospitals that are geographically a bit far apart, which might create a problem for conference attendance.

UC Davis - Diverse patient population, more of a clinical program. Building on a new cath/EP labs to the hospital that will soon be open. Seems to have good camaraderie. Nuclear training not very good, cath lab training very good, echo training OK, no subspecialty fellowships right now except interventional.

OHSU - had some problems with the call schedule a couple years ago and with staffing cards service with house staff, but overall should be solid program. I don't know if those problems are resolved.

 

[littlecbug]

UCSF. Ditto about cath lab volume. Good for general fellows to get hands on cath experience, but not so popular place for interventional cards. Also I hear there's lots of call the first year-100 days. Great research opportunities.

UCLA. Lots of money and research support. The loss of the HF/Transplant group also means the loss of procedures (EP, cath, etc.) on those patients, but it's probably only temporary.

UCSD. Basic science heavy as expected. Good combination of intense clinical training and research opportunities. A small program.

Scripps. I too heard that fellows have to admit patients and write H&Ps. Cath heavy place.

UCDavis. Doesn't really have heart failure/transplant. Seems like a good lifestyle for the fellows.

Kaiser programs. Both LA and SF seem heavy on cath. Reasonable call schedules.

Harbor-UCLA. Agree that MRI is a weakness. Good training, and a reasonable call schedule. Budoff the PD is a big name in imaging and CT.

UCSF - strong basic research, strong CHF/transplant. I heard they don't have a lot of cath lab volume. I don't know about EP there, but I think there are some big names.
I don't know much about the Kaiser programs.

UCLA - just lost a lot of their transplant docs, but since it's a solid academic place I'm assuming they will recruit others. They do have a 5 year program (3 clinical, 2 clinical research) for fellows who are interested. They cover at least a couple of hospitals that are geographically a bit far apart, which might create a problem for conference attendance.

UC Davis - Diverse patient population, more of a clinical program. Building on a new cath/EP labs to the hospital that will soon be open. Seems to have good camaraderie. Nuclear training not very good, cath lab training very good, echo training OK, no subspecialty fellowships right now except interventional.

OHSU - had some problems with the call schedule a couple years ago and with staffing cards service with house staff, but overall should be solid program. I don't know if those problems are resolved.

 

[dragonfly99]

I think we forgot California Pacific in SF. This seems like a pretty cushy private hospital. The fellows were from some pretty decent IM residencies. The faculty seemed pretty cool. The place seems more private practice than academics, so not sure how much teaching there would be (formal teaching, I mean). I think they do HF/transplant to some extent, put in LVADs, etc.

 

[indimedico]

How is loma linda for cardiology? I am a PGY-1 in IM residency in california.

 

[nope80]

Bump. Any thoughts on california pacific and kaiser-sf?