Latest articles

‘Publish or perish’. This well-known phrase, likely first mentioned over a century ago, was even once the title of a one-day course run in central London, which I attended. Thankfully, this mantra has faded from prominence in recent years, but what does it mean, why did it become so (in)famous and what have the consequences been? Oxford physician, clinical pharmacologist and writer Dr Jeffrey Aronson proposed a definition for the ‘publish or perish’ paradigm last year, suggesting the following:

“An aphorism that describes the pressure on an academic to have innovative scholarly material published in reputable journals or other forms of scholarly output, sufficiently often, in order to avoid demotion, dismissal, failure to progress in one’s scholarly career, or diminishing the status or reputation of one’s scholarly community or discipline.”¹

Lipid management is a key component of secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but guideline adherence is variable. Adjunctive lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) beyond statins are available, yet eligibility in the real-world setting is not well-described. We aimed to improve local post-ACS lipid management, and evaluate eligibility for LLTs.

Consecutive admissions of patients with ACS to a district general hospital from April to June 2022 were assessed for: inpatient lipid-profile assessment, inpatient LLT management, and outpatient repeat lipid profiles. A structured intervention, including updating blood testing panels, education, and reference resources, was implemented. We re-audited admissions in April–June 2024, where eligibility for adjunctive LLTs was assessed.

There were 97 (cycle 1) and 102 (cycle 2) patients identified. While performance was suboptimal in cycle 1, we observed improvements in cycle 2 (baseline full lipid profile testing from 10% to 75%; appropriate LLT management 65% to 78%; post-discharge repeat testing 37% to 63%). At one year post-ACS, 35% of patients remained subtherapeutic, but medication changes were rare.

In conclusion, through use of a structured intervention, we were able to improve post-ACS lipid management. Many patients fail to achieve therapeutic lipid lowering. Strategies to address this are urgently required.

Infective endocarditis (IE) carries significant morbidity and mortality, with reported in-hospital mortality ranging from 15 to 30%. Timely echocardiography is crucial for early diagnosis and optimal management. Current UK and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend echocardiography within 24 hours for suspected IE, particularly in high-risk cases. We aimed to evaluate adherence to these guidelines at a UK district general hospital (DGH), to assess the relationship between delayed echocardiography and patient outcomes, and to assess the reasons why it may be delayed.

We performed a retrospective audit of 78 patients who were inpatients, undergoing echocardiography for suspected IE. Patient demographics, clinical features, day of the week and timing of echocardiography from initial clinical suspicion, and outcomes (30-day mortality, IE diagnosis per modified Duke criteria) were recorded. Echocardiography delays were defined as imaging beyond 24 hours from the echo being requested. Primary outcome was adherence to imaging timing. Secondary outcome was 30-day mortality.

Among the 78 patients audited, delays exceeded on-time scans (47/78, 60.3%, p=0.044, 95% confidence interval [CI] 48.5 to 71.2%). Day-of-week was associated with <24-hour breach on logistic modelling (p=0.031), worst on Thursday/weekends (100% delayed) vs. Wednesday (60%). Using modified Duke criteria, 32% of patients were deemed to have definite or possible IE. The overall 30-day mortality rate in the audit population was 20.5%. However, echocardiography delays alone did not significantly impact mortality (p=0.594).

In conclusion, despite clear guidelines, delays in echocardiography were prevalent. While delayed imaging alone did not significantly predict mortality, patients diagnosed with IE had significantly higher mortality. The day of the week of the echo request had a statistically significant impact on delays. These results highlight the importance of timely echocardiography to confirm IE diagnosis promptly, and potentially improve outcomes.

A man in his eighties presented with a two-week history of left-arm swelling and bruising. Twelve years earlier, he had undergone dual-chamber pacemaker implantation for bradycardia and syncope. His past medical history included hypertension, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) 15 years prior.

Upon further investigation with ultrasound Doppler, and computerised tomography (CT) of his chest, a thrombus was confirmed in the left subclavian vein, associated with a pacing lead. He was initiated on a three-week course of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Although his symptoms initially improved, traces of the thrombus remained on his follow-up CT after commencing treatment, and he was continued on lifelong direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC).

Pathogenesis, incidence, investigations and management of pacemaker-induced thrombosis are discussed. This case illustrates a rare, delayed presentation of pacemaker-induced thrombosis in the context of a symptomatic presentation and highlights the potential need for prolonged anticoagulation.

In the UK, the majority (90%) of hypertension is managed in primary care. Yet, for the 10% who require secondary-care input, there is no specialist register for doctors who manage hypertension. There is a mismatch across the nations with regards to access to secondary care for management of complex hypertension cases. Heterogeneity exists in terms of local specialist services, referral pathways, and specialties overseeing care.

We polled across primary care in the UK to assess accessibility to a local specialist hypertension clinic, the clinical reasons for referral and the specialty referred to. Cardiology was by far and away the leading specialty for referrals. Yet the vast majority of cardiology trainees in the UK are receiving minimal, if any, specialist training in hypertension. A cardiology registrar is likely to spend substantially more days on-call for general medicine than the amount of specialist clinics they can attend in hypertension.

We are facing a major deficit in the specialist management of hypertension if the trainees of today are not ready to provide the required expertise and oversight for the complex cases of tomorrow.

The burden of hypertension in the UK is profound.¹ It is the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease and vascular dementia, affecting approximately 30% of adults, with an estimated 4.2 million remaining undiagnosed – an alarming figure that underscores longstanding gaps between evidence and implementation in routine care.^2–5 Against this backdrop, the British and Irish Hypertension Society (BIHS), in partnership with the British Heart Foundation Clinical Research Collaborative (BHF‑CRC), has developed the first national, consensus‑driven effort to define future research priorities in hypertension.⁶ This represents a landmark initiative: a structured attempt to align research, policy, and clinical services with the realities of modern hypertension care.

Over eight million UK citizens are at unnecessary risk of the avoidable consequences of hypertension because of inadequate blood pressure (BP) control.¹ Improving this is a key objective of the Department of Health and Social Care, and is one of the five major priorities in the NHSE Core20PLUS5 approach to reducing healthcare inequalities.² The national emphasis on hypertension case finding and management requires a significant increase in the availability of specialist advice and management, which can improve control and outcomes.

Conduction system pacing (CSP) ― encompassing His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle-branch area pacing (LBBAP) ― delivers more physiological ventricular pacing compared with traditional right ventricular (RV) pacing. It is gaining traction beyond tertiary centres, however, evidence from district general hospitals (DGHs) remains limited. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, electrical performance, and early clinical outcomes of CSP implemented in a UK DGH.

We performed a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive patients who underwent successful CSP at Chesterfield Royal Hospital. HBP implants (n=20) were performed between June 2019 and August 2022; LBBAP implants (n=71) between January 2023 and May 2025. Baseline demographics, procedural metrics, pacing parameters, complications, heart-failure (HF) readmissions, and echocardiographic data to 12 months were obtained from electronic records.

Ninety-one patients (mean age 76 ± 10 years; 69% male) received CSP, most commonly for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) (40%) or anticipated high right-ventricular pacing burden (42%). LBBAP demonstrated lower implant thresholds than HBP (0.92 ± 0.44 V vs. 1.50 ± 0.77 V) and remained stable to 12 months (0.68 ± 0.25 V). HBP thresholds rose to 2.11 ± 1.49 V at 12 months. Screening time was shorter with LBBAP (9.6 ± 5.9 min) than HBP (14.4 ± 6.8 min, p<0.01). No infections or septal haematomas occurred. Lead revision was required in two HBP recipients and none with LBBAP (hazard ratio 17.14, p=0.067). Nine patients (9.9%) were readmitted with HF, occurring between 56 and 1,500 days post-implant.

In conclusion, CSP can be implemented safely and effectively in a DGH setting. LBBAP offers superior electrical stability, shorter procedure time, and less lead revisions, supporting its preferential adoption as the default pacing strategy for CSP.

A nurse-led heart murmur clinic was introduced at Sheffield Children’s Hospital in 2023 to reduce waiting times, support the clinical nurse specialist (CNS) role development, and improve cost-efficiency. By triaging appropriate referrals to a CNS-led pathway with pre-arranged echocardiography and telephone follow-up, the clinic reduced wait times from 16 to 5–6 weeks and saved over £3,000 in its first year. The model demonstrates that nurse-led services can safely and effectively manage selected paediatric referrals, improve access to care, and deliver measurable service efficiencies.