Editorial articles

Hypertension is the most important single modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease prevention. An estimated 1.28 billion adults aged 30–79 years have hypertension worldwide.¹ Around 16 million adults in the UK suffer with hypertension, which is roughly a third of the adult population.² The benefits of lowering blood pressure (BP) are firmly established down to 140/90 mmHg. More recently, several randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed the benefits of lowering targets further to <120 mmHg systolic. ACCORD, SPRINT, RESPECT, ESPRIT and BPROAD RCTs compared a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <120 mmHg versus <140 mmHg.^3–7 The ACCORD trial recruited patients with diabetes, and RESPECT recruited patients with stroke.^3,4 Both of these RCTs demonstrated no significant difference in their pre-specified primary outcomes of major cardiovascular events in ACCORD, and recurrence of stroke in RESPECT. The ACCORD trial found more serious adverse events with intensive BP targeting, and the RESPECT trial ended early due to slow recruitment and funding.^3,4 Both had a relatively small number of participants, which may have contributed to the negative result seen in these studies.

James Mackenzie was born on 12 April 1853 in Scone, Perthshire, Scotland, and educated at the village primary school and then Perth Academy. At age 15 he left school, apparently at his own request, to become an assistant at a local chemist’s shop, then a chemist’s apprentice in Perth, qualifying as a chemist (pharmacist) at the age of 20 and working as a chemist in Glasgow. He began to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh at the age of 21.

He was tall and broad-shouldered demonstrating physical and mental strength. He mastered French and German, in both of which he was able to read medical literature. He read and published extensively. He even published novels. His non-medical interests included chess and sporting activities. His marriage, at the age of 34, was a happy one, lasting until his death from coronary artery disease on 25 January 1925. He had two daughters, one of whom died at the age of 16, which grieved him for life.

You are a cardiology trainee (or you want to be one) and you’re contemplating your future career development. You’ve just noticed that cardiology is on the competitive side, and you want to maximise your chances of getting ahead. You light on the idea that you might do some research, get some publications, and that this might stand you in good stead for the future. Well …

From the outside, it might seem that research is quite glamorous – flying to conferences in exotic places, wining and dining with the great and the good, delivering lectures to rapt audiences in large halls … sadly, the reality is quite different, particularly at an early stage in research.

The sixteenth-century French surgeon Ambroise Paré remarked, “aneurysms which happen in the internal parts are incurable”,^1,2 underscoring the historical challenges of managing aortic disease. Frank Nicholls’ autopsy report of King George II of England (1760) was the first to describe aortic arch dissection.³ It was not until 1944 that Crafoord and Nylin reported the first end-to-end aortic anastomosis for coarctation resection,⁴ and shortly after, Gross set the stage for rapid aortic repair advancements by replacing a coarctation segment with an arterial homograft.⁵

In 1952, Cooley and DeBakey utilised homografts for thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm repair,⁶ and by 1954 they introduced aortic dissection surgery. In 1957, homografts had been used to replace ascending aorta⁷ and arch.⁸

During the 1970s, Crawford pioneered thoraco-abdominal aneurysm repair, employing an anatomic endovascular graft-inclusion technique. His innovations improved early survival rates, achieving a remarkable 92%.⁹ Rather than fully resecting the aneurysm, the retained aneurysmal wall was wrapped around the replacement graft. In contemporary practice, open aortic repair remains the standard of care for the majority of patients.

For more than 30 years, Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY) has been at the forefront of efforts to prevent sudden cardiac deaths in young people. Established in 1995, CRY has transformed the landscape of cardiac screening, research, and bereavement support in the UK and beyond. Through pioneering research, large-scale screening initiatives, and raising awareness, CRY has saved lives, supported affected families, and driven critical policy changes. This article explores CRY’s impact over the past three decades and its continuing efforts to prevent young sudden cardiac death (YSCD).

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events in people receiving long-term haemodialysis (HD) are common, present atypically and are associated with poor outcomes.^1–3 Diagnosis is challenging, and treatment even more so. The complexity of this population drives their exclusion from clinical trials, resulting in a scarcity of evidence supporting any ‘optimal’ treatment strategy.⁴ Guidelines are, as a result, vague and, to a degree, contradictory.^5–7 These are some of the reasons that the combination of cardiac and renal disease strike fear into even the most seasoned clinicians. Is it this fear that underlies the observed conservatism in treatment of those with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), and are we, therefore, contributing inadvertently to the adverse outcomes we are simultaneously striving to avoid? I commend Muhammad Haider and colleagues for tackling this challenging area, and attempting to summarise our knowledge in their review: “Diagnosis and management of ACS in patients with ESRD on haemodialysis: a comprehensive review”.⁸

The arrival of sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors has ushered in a new era in the management of cardiometabolic diseases. These innovative agents, initially developed for glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes, have unexpectedly demonstrated significant cardiovascular benefits, revolutionising cardiologists’ approach to the prevention and treatment of heart failure and cardiovascular events.¹

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death for women, responsible for over a third of all deaths.¹ In contrast, women remain widely under-represented in cardiovascular trials,² as well as in their roles as physicians and trialists.³

The scarcity of female representation in cardiology carries broad consequences, affecting patient care quality, workplace diversity, and the inclusion of women in clinical trials. Engaging more women in academia and industry collaborations can boost their professional visibility, career opportunities, and increases the likelihood of female patients to receive guideline-based therapies, all of which highlights the need for gender diversity in cardiology.⁴

A quiet revolution without fanfare took place at a meeting, witnessed by over 1,000 people both in London and live streamed across the globe on 31 January 2024. It was unprecedented, going against received wisdom. That, it was possible to treat atherosclerotic coronary artery disease with an updated Andreas Grüntzig’s balloon alone, without the safety net and comfort of implanting a single stent. Three interactive cases were treated with the drug-coated balloon and all patients were same-day discharged. Seemingly a show of simplicity, parsimony and bravado, but dive a little deeper, the skill set for stent-free coronary intervention has been meticulously studied over the last 20 years by pioneers and early adopters alike. The sacred cow slayed on this historic day was that balloon-inflicted coronary dissection rarely leads to occlusion, having effective antiplatelet therapy on board. And, potentially occlusive dissection is, not only predictable, but this method can be used in the ambulatory care setting. Thus, saving hospital bed stays. This event will be remembered as the tipping point at which a paradigm shift has occurred, but going back to embracing Grüntzig’s lessons. This is timely too, considering that two decades of systematic stenting has led to stent failures comprising nearly a third of daily interventional workload.

There is little doubt that demand on the National Health Service (NHS) has exceeded supply. Given the rhetoric of no more money, no new workforce, and no new estates, it is incumbent on us all to make better and more efficient use of the limited resource we do have, improve how we work together as one integrated health, community and social care ecosystem, and increase the value of every action we take. Cardiovascular services are no exception.