Clinicians have been using HeartSee to diagnose and treat coronary artery disease since the technology first debuted back in 2018. These latest updates, set to roll out to existing users, are designed to improve diagnostic performance and user access.
The new document represents the ACC’s first Concise Clinical Guidance; it was designed to be an easy-to-use reference for keeping track of a complicated topic.
“Clear signs of an aortic dissection” were missed in the patient's imaging findings after he presented to the emergency room, according to the lawsuit. He was diagnosed with acute pericarditis at the time and sent home—and then died four days later.
Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder images courtesy of Abbott.
Researchers explored five-year data from more than 1,800 patients with nonvalvular AFib who underwent LAAO with Abbott's Amulet or Boston Scientific's Watchman 2.5.
Clinicians are asking the world's medical societies to come together and agree on one acronym for TAVR/TAVI to avoid unnecessary confusion going forward.
Researchers developed several new AI models that could guide the management of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. There is still some work to do in terms of accuracy, but they already appear to outperform the traditional risk scores being used today.
The cardiac technologies clinicians use for CVD evaluations have changed significantly in recent years, according to a new analysis of CMS data. While some modalities are on the rise, others are being utilized much less than ever before.
TAVR adoption in Africa has been relatively slow, but cardiologists throughout the continent have made considerable progress. New data does show that there is some work to be done before outcomes will rival what is seen in many other parts of the world.
BiVacor founder Daniel Timms, PhD. Image courtesy of BiVacor.
Total artificial heart recipients typically stay in the hospital. In this case, however, the patient was able to wait for a donated heart from the comfort of his own home.
![A majority of medical devices involved in Class I recalls were never required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to undergo premarket or postmarket clinical testing, according to new research published in Annals of Internal Medicine.[1]](/sites/default/files/styles/top_stories/public/2024-09/istock-1209664264.jpg.webp?itok=gQInU1vO)
