TCT Abstract Ranking Reveals Global CVD Research Hot Spots

Many researchers are fortunate to have opportunities to present their work at major medical meetings, but a close look at who is and isn’t included in these opportunities, and the institutions they hail from, offers a chance to help raise awareness and refine focus regarding where help is most needed.

This week, the Cardiovascular Research Foundation announced the results of its CRF Scientific Excellence Top 10 (SET-10), a newly launched ranking system intended to recognize academic contributions to interventional cardiovascular medicine, based on an analysis of scientific submissions to the TCT 2023 meeting. The analysis identifies “excellence” on a global level, within the United States, and outside the United States, and is then further broken down according to three other specific categories: coronary, structural, and late-breaking clinical research.

Full results from this year’s analysis have been published on CRF Connect.

The ranking helps recognize institutions and demographic regions that are excelling, but potentially can also lay the groundwork for improvement, said CRF President and CEO Juan Granada, MD.

“What we saw is that Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa are not represented at all,” he told TCTMD. “If you look within European countries, you see that the usual suspects are on the top of the list, but urban areas are not represented.”

The analysis, led by Guillaume Bonnet, MD, PhD (University Hospital of Bordeaux, France) and Sebastian Ludwig, MD (University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, Germany), included 1,274 abstract submissions to TCT 2023, which were evaluated by an average of 23 expert graders using a scale ranging from 1 to 10 for each of three specific parameters.

The statistical formula included only scientific submissions with an average score ≥ 7.0, taking into consideration average grades (55% weight) and the number (quantity) of accepted submissions (45% weight). The late-breaking clinical trial rankings include the analysis of all late-breaking clinical trial, late-breaking clinical science, and featured clinical science accepted at the meeting.

There is lack of equity in our field not just in access to technologies for patients, but inequity in education and in opportunities for research, for presenting that research on a world stage. Juan Granada

Among all abstract submissions, the majority were from out of the US (OUS), with 499 from the US. Of 172 late-breaking research submissions, however, nine of the top 10 highest ranking were from North America, with just one European institution breaking into the top 10. Coming out on top was New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University, followed by Piedmont Heart Institute in Atlanta, GA, and Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minnesota.

Globally, of the top 10 highest-ranking abstracts, five were from Europe, four from the US, and one from Asia (South Korea). Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands took the top spot overall and was also first in OUS coronary abstract rankings. Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, CA, was second overall, and it also held the top spot among US abstract submissions, as well as among structural submissions. Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea, was number three globally, followed by the National University of Ireland Galway and Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. Also making it into the top 10 globally were the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, the Heart Center Leipzig in Germany, Amsterdam University Medical Center, King’s College London, and the Heart Hospital at Baylor Scott & White in Denton, TX.

In the OUS rankings, South Korea, Germany, and the Netherlands each had two hospitals that made it into the top 10. The coronary top 10 was largely dominated by North American centers despite OUS hospitals in the top two spots.

Clear Gaps in Multiple Areas and Regions

“From my perspective as a young researcher, I would say that this is epistemology; it's science of science,” Bonnet noted, adding that some of the data may be helpful for those looking for guidance in applying to active research fellowship programs. But the broader story in these data is about who is not on top or even close to it.

“We were very fortunate to be able to come to CRF as research fellows, but in the end, we also have to acknowledge that we are part of the elite and that we are privileged,” said Ludwig. “There is a lot to be done [and it] will require efforts from the larger centers, perhaps, and from national and international organizations to come up with real solutions to support regions [that need help] in building up their research programs and being independent.”

While this analysis focused only on submissions to a single large cardiovascular meeting, Granada said he is hopeful about partnering with other meetings and organizations to collect and analyze similar data using the statistical formula that Bonnet and Ludwig developed.

“We see this as the start of a process that can potentially be extended to help gain a better understanding of how to measure and how to react to these data in a way that is going to be helpful and philanthropic,” he added. “There is lack of equity in our field not just in access to technologies for patients, but inequity in education and in opportunities for research, for presenting that research on a world stage, and there are clear gaps in reaching physicians who are looking for engagement and assistance in multiple research areas and regions. I think what we see in these data is also a reflection on the inequity in creating diverse populations of trial participants, which we know is important.”