Dr. Jay Giri is the Director of the Cardiovascular Catheterization Laboratories of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Associate Professor at the Perelman School of Medicine. His clinical and research focus includes complex coronary artery intervention and emerging endovascular technologies. He was selected for the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions Emerging Leader Mentorship Fellowship in 2017 and received the 2019 Transcatheter Therapeutics Linnemeier Young Investigator Award.
Reflecting on your time at the end of your fellowship, was there a therapy area or subject matter you wish you had learned more about or gained more experience in?
I definitely wish I had received more training in complex coronary and CTO management as an interventionist. I completed my fellowship in 2012. At that time, the field of complex coronary and CTO management was just emerging. Unlike today, there weren’t as many dedicated programs for trainees. Although still limited, the existing programs now do an excellent job of training individuals to handle complex cases early in their careers. My fellowship training provided a solid foundation in the fundamentals, but it lacked exposure to the most innovative aspects of coronary management. I spent the first six or seven years of my practice dedicating time to developing those skills.
As a quick follow-up, for an interventional cardiologist early in their career unable to join a CHIP fellowship, what are one or two suggestions you have to accelerate their learning in complex PCI?
Complex PCI and chronic total occlusions (CTOs), though often grouped together, are distinct fields. CTOs require full commitment. This includes building a unique cognitive skill set from a range of educational materials that help you learn specific terminologies, nomenclatures, and techniques that are somewhat different from standard coronary interventions.
After acquiring these tools, it’s crucial to seek mentorship, ideally local, but if necessary, non-local could work too. I wouldn’t advise diving into CTOs without a solid foundation in PCI. For me, that meant several years of experience and about a thousand PCIs under my belt before I fully committed to diving into CTOs.
I don’t think it’s the best subset of procedures to just dip your toe into. But I do think that somebody who’s committed and who has a fair amount of coronary interventional experience can certainly develop that skill through practice.
Having an equally interested partner who's willing to jump in with you really accelerates the learning curve. In my case, Dr. Tai Kobayashi and I scrubbed together for our first hundred cases. We also benefited from local mentorship by an experienced CTO specialist who, despite potential competition, scrubbed with us initially during our first three or four cases.
Eventually, you have to take the training wheels off. Key steps include building a strong foundation in standard PCI, gaining credibility within your institution, finding a partner—if possible—and seeking real-time, in-person mentorship.
You mentioned the collaborative community within interventional cardiology, particularly in the high-risk PCI and CTO space. It seems quite distinct from other areas of medicine that can often feel more fragmented and competitive. Would you agree?
Yes. Pursuing coronary CTO isn’t the most time-efficient choice for a business-oriented interventional cardiologist. It requires significant dedication. I think people who are in this space are passionate about providing technical solutions, despite the numerous challenges it presents. This passion likely fuels the collaborative spirit you’ve observed—there's a shared commitment to advancing capabilities and overcoming the hurdles inherent in such complex interventions.
You were recently featured on a panel at CIT related to clinical trials, and we know you have extensive experience in research. What advice would you offer younger physicians looking to get more involved in research?
Sure, there are essentially two different pathways one might consider, and there can be some overlap between them over time. Initially, one has to be quite honest about the level of time and commitment they're willing to invest in either pathway.
The first, which is less common, involves dedicating time during training to study formalized research methods. This could be in outcomes and policy methods, a pathway some colleagues and I have pursued, or in translational research, like a handful of interventional cardiologists nationwide have done. After acquiring a formal degree and training, one can leverage both the skills they’ve acquired and the mentorship and professional networks they’ve built to seek independent research funding. This classical academic pathway is rare in interventional cardiology, though not unheard of—you could count on two hands the number of interventional cardiologists who have federal grant support as part of their salary. I would never discourage anyone with a true passion for this route, as anyone in interventional cardiology has already demonstrated considerable focus and capability.
The second, more common path is to become a key opinion leader by turning yourself into a clinical expert in a niche area. The first step is choosing to specialize in an area that is underrepresented locally, and ideally, choosing a field that is gaining traction globally as well. There are several emerging micro specialties within interventional cardiology where one can ride the early wave of innovation, given innovative companies are able to push us into new ways of thinking about disease treatments.
So, how do you become an expert? The first step is choosing a niche that is probably not well-addressed, at least by your local community or hospital. In an ideal world, this might be a space that is trending globally. Once you've chosen your niche, commit to building your cognitive and technical skillset. Most of this learning will happen on the job, so be prepared for self-study. Finally, develop a strong referral base and a multidisciplinary team.
If you do these things, you'll likely become a regional expert in a few years. From there, you can decide if you want to commit to high-quality clinical research in your area. This could be through industry-sponsored trials or other funding sources. It takes groups of people collaborating to get the job done, as opposed to one investigator running a lab, pushing forward his or her scientific agenda. This is the path most physicians on podiums have taken, but it requires planning and dedication.
Both paths are valuable, and many of the most impactful, practice-changing studies come from the collaborative efforts of the second group. There can naturally be some overlap between these paths. I started in category one as a health services researcher and have gradually increased my involvement in clinical trials.
Dr. Jay Giri is the Director of the Cardiovascular Catheterization Laboratories of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Associate Professor at the Perelman School of Medicine. His clinical and research focus includes complex coronary artery intervention and emerging endovascular technologies. He was selected for the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions Emerging Leader Mentorship Fellowship in 2017 and received the 2019 Transcatheter Therapeutics Linnemeier Young Investigator Award.
Reflecting on your time at the end of your fellowship, was there a therapy area or subject matter you wish you had learned more about or gained more experience in?
I definitely wish I had received more training in complex coronary and CTO management as an interventionist. I completed my fellowship in 2012. At that time, the field of complex coronary and CTO management was just emerging. Unlike today, there weren’t as many dedicated programs for trainees. Although still limited, the existing programs now do an excellent job of training individuals to handle complex cases early in their careers. My fellowship training provided a solid foundation in the fundamentals, but it lacked exposure to the most innovative aspects of coronary management. I spent the first six or seven years of my practice dedicating time to developing those skills.
As a quick follow-up, for an interventional cardiologist early in their career unable to join a CHIP fellowship, what are one or two suggestions you have to accelerate their learning in complex PCI?
Complex PCI and chronic total occlusions (CTOs), though often grouped together, are distinct fields. CTOs require full commitment. This includes building a unique cognitive skill set from a range of educational materials that help you learn specific terminologies, nomenclatures, and techniques that are somewhat different from standard coronary interventions.
After acquiring these tools, it’s crucial to seek mentorship, ideally local, but if necessary, non-local could work too. I wouldn’t advise diving into CTOs without a solid foundation in PCI. For me, that meant several years of experience and about a thousand PCIs under my belt before I fully committed to diving into CTOs.
I don’t think it’s the best subset of procedures to just dip your toe into. But I do think that somebody who’s committed and who has a fair amount of coronary interventional experience can certainly develop that skill through practice.
Having an equally interested partner who's willing to jump in with you really accelerates the learning curve. In my case, Dr. Tai Kobayashi and I scrubbed together for our first hundred cases. We also benefited from local mentorship by an experienced CTO specialist who, despite potential competition, scrubbed with us initially during our first three or four cases.
Eventually, you have to take the training wheels off. Key steps include building a strong foundation in standard PCI, gaining credibility within your institution, finding a partner—if possible—and seeking real-time, in-person mentorship.
You mentioned the collaborative community within interventional cardiology, particularly in the high-risk PCI and CTO space. It seems quite distinct from other areas of medicine that can often feel more fragmented and competitive. Would you agree?
Yes. Pursuing coronary CTO isn’t the most time-efficient choice for a business-oriented interventional cardiologist. It requires significant dedication. I think people who are in this space are passionate about providing technical solutions, despite the numerous challenges it presents. This passion likely fuels the collaborative spirit you’ve observed—there's a shared commitment to advancing capabilities and overcoming the hurdles inherent in such complex interventions.
You were recently featured on a panel at CIT related to clinical trials, and we know you have extensive experience in research. What advice would you offer younger physicians looking to get more involved in research?
Sure, there are essentially two different pathways one might consider, and there can be some overlap between them over time. Initially, one has to be quite honest about the level of time and commitment they're willing to invest in either pathway.
The first, which is less common, involves dedicating time during training to study formalized research methods. This could be in outcomes and policy methods, a pathway some colleagues and I have pursued, or in translational research, like a handful of interventional cardiologists nationwide have done. After acquiring a formal degree and training, one can leverage both the skills they’ve acquired and the mentorship and professional networks they’ve built to seek independent research funding. This classical academic pathway is rare in interventional cardiology, though not unheard of—you could count on two hands the number of interventional cardiologists who have federal grant support as part of their salary. I would never discourage anyone with a true passion for this route, as anyone in interventional cardiology has already demonstrated considerable focus and capability.
The second, more common path is to become a key opinion leader by turning yourself into a clinical expert in a niche area. The first step is choosing to specialize in an area that is underrepresented locally, and ideally, choosing a field that is gaining traction globally as well. There are several emerging micro specialties within interventional cardiology where one can ride the early wave of innovation, given innovative companies are able to push us into new ways of thinking about disease treatments.
So, how do you become an expert? The first step is choosing a niche that is probably not well-addressed, at least by your local community or hospital. In an ideal world, this might be a space that is trending globally. Once you've chosen your niche, commit to building your cognitive and technical skillset. Most of this learning will happen on the job, so be prepared for self-study. Finally, develop a strong referral base and a multidisciplinary team.
If you do these things, you'll likely become a regional expert in a few years. From there, you can decide if you want to commit to high-quality clinical research in your area. This could be through industry-sponsored trials or other funding sources. It takes groups of people collaborating to get the job done, as opposed to one investigator running a lab, pushing forward his or her scientific agenda. This is the path most physicians on podiums have taken, but it requires planning and dedication.
Both paths are valuable, and many of the most impactful, practice-changing studies come from the collaborative efforts of the second group. There can naturally be some overlap between these paths. I started in category one as a health services researcher and have gradually increased my involvement in clinical trials.
Dr. Jay Giri is the Director of the Cardiovascular Catheterization Laboratories of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Associate Professor at the Perelman School of Medicine. His clinical and research focus includes complex coronary artery intervention and emerging endovascular technologies. He was selected for the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions Emerging Leader Mentorship Fellowship in 2017 and received the 2019 Transcatheter Therapeutics Linnemeier Young Investigator Award.
Reflecting on your time at the end of your fellowship, was there a therapy area or subject matter you wish you had learned more about or gained more experience in?
I definitely wish I had received more training in complex coronary and CTO management as an interventionist. I completed my fellowship in 2012. At that time, the field of complex coronary and CTO management was just emerging. Unlike today, there weren’t as many dedicated programs for trainees. Although still limited, the existing programs now do an excellent job of training individuals to handle complex cases early in their careers. My fellowship training provided a solid foundation in the fundamentals, but it lacked exposure to the most innovative aspects of coronary management. I spent the first six or seven years of my practice dedicating time to developing those skills.
As a quick follow-up, for an interventional cardiologist early in their career unable to join a CHIP fellowship, what are one or two suggestions you have to accelerate their learning in complex PCI?
Complex PCI and chronic total occlusions (CTOs), though often grouped together, are distinct fields. CTOs require full commitment. This includes building a unique cognitive skill set from a range of educational materials that help you learn specific terminologies, nomenclatures, and techniques that are somewhat different from standard coronary interventions.
After acquiring these tools, it’s crucial to seek mentorship, ideally local, but if necessary, non-local could work too. I wouldn’t advise diving into CTOs without a solid foundation in PCI. For me, that meant several years of experience and about a thousand PCIs under my belt before I fully committed to diving into CTOs.
I don’t think it’s the best subset of procedures to just dip your toe into. But I do think that somebody who’s committed and who has a fair amount of coronary interventional experience can certainly develop that skill through practice.
Having an equally interested partner who's willing to jump in with you really accelerates the learning curve. In my case, Dr. Tai Kobayashi and I scrubbed together for our first hundred cases. We also benefited from local mentorship by an experienced CTO specialist who, despite potential competition, scrubbed with us initially during our first three or four cases.
Eventually, you have to take the training wheels off. Key steps include building a strong foundation in standard PCI, gaining credibility within your institution, finding a partner—if possible—and seeking real-time, in-person mentorship.
You mentioned the collaborative community within interventional cardiology, particularly in the high-risk PCI and CTO space. It seems quite distinct from other areas of medicine that can often feel more fragmented and competitive. Would you agree?
Yes. Pursuing coronary CTO isn’t the most time-efficient choice for a business-oriented interventional cardiologist. It requires significant dedication. I think people who are in this space are passionate about providing technical solutions, despite the numerous challenges it presents. This passion likely fuels the collaborative spirit you’ve observed—there's a shared commitment to advancing capabilities and overcoming the hurdles inherent in such complex interventions.
You were recently featured on a panel at CIT related to clinical trials, and we know you have extensive experience in research. What advice would you offer younger physicians looking to get more involved in research?
Sure, there are essentially two different pathways one might consider, and there can be some overlap between them over time. Initially, one has to be quite honest about the level of time and commitment they're willing to invest in either pathway.
The first, which is less common, involves dedicating time during training to study formalized research methods. This could be in outcomes and policy methods, a pathway some colleagues and I have pursued, or in translational research, like a handful of interventional cardiologists nationwide have done. After acquiring a formal degree and training, one can leverage both the skills they’ve acquired and the mentorship and professional networks they’ve built to seek independent research funding. This classical academic pathway is rare in interventional cardiology, though not unheard of—you could count on two hands the number of interventional cardiologists who have federal grant support as part of their salary. I would never discourage anyone with a true passion for this route, as anyone in interventional cardiology has already demonstrated considerable focus and capability.
The second, more common path is to become a key opinion leader by turning yourself into a clinical expert in a niche area. The first step is choosing to specialize in an area that is underrepresented locally, and ideally, choosing a field that is gaining traction globally as well. There are several emerging micro specialties within interventional cardiology where one can ride the early wave of innovation, given innovative companies are able to push us into new ways of thinking about disease treatments.
So, how do you become an expert? The first step is choosing a niche that is probably not well-addressed, at least by your local community or hospital. In an ideal world, this might be a space that is trending globally. Once you've chosen your niche, commit to building your cognitive and technical skillset. Most of this learning will happen on the job, so be prepared for self-study. Finally, develop a strong referral base and a multidisciplinary team.
If you do these things, you'll likely become a regional expert in a few years. From there, you can decide if you want to commit to high-quality clinical research in your area. This could be through industry-sponsored trials or other funding sources. It takes groups of people collaborating to get the job done, as opposed to one investigator running a lab, pushing forward his or her scientific agenda. This is the path most physicians on podiums have taken, but it requires planning and dedication.
Both paths are valuable, and many of the most impactful, practice-changing studies come from the collaborative efforts of the second group. There can naturally be some overlap between these paths. I started in category one as a health services researcher and have gradually increased my involvement in clinical trials.
Fun, Insightful Interviews with the
World's Brightest Physicians
Delivered straight to your inbox. Completely free. No spam.
Fun, Insightful Interviews with the
World's Brightest Physicians
Delivered straight to your inbox. Completely free. No spam.
Fun, Insightful Interviews with the
World's Brightest Physicians
Delivered straight to your inbox. Completely free. No spam.
Transitioning to more professional-related questions, reflecting on the business aspects of healthcare, are there concepts or topics you wish you had a better understanding of when you were coming out of residency and fellowship?
Yes, there are two aspects, one simpler and the other more complex.
The first is understanding professional fees and how to bill and code properly to ensure full credit for our work. This isn't typically taught in fellowships, but it's crucial to engage actively in billing, particularly in the last year or two of training. This helps avoid a long learning curve when starting practice. I've noticed my recent fellows engaging more, especially in their last six months, ensuring reports reflect the work done to secure full credit.
The second and more complex aspect concerns understanding hospital-level finances, which differ significantly from professional fees. This includes knowing the revenues and costs associated with the procedures we perform as interventionalists, such as the significant costs of disposable or implantable products and other expenses like personnel and hospital beds. Most healthcare funds flow through facilities rather than through professional fees, particularly in our specialty. Understanding this allows interventionalists to make nuanced arguments for resources and investments.
For the most part, decisions about resource allocation are often made by executives without domain-specific expertise, leading to misallocation. If more physicians understood the financial aspects of healthcare, they could be more effective advocates for their patients and programs. Significant misallocation of resources in healthcare happens because the people with domain-specific expertise aren't in the room. And this is because they're not considered appropriate decision-makers as they don't speak the language of contribution margins and/or total margins of the hospital.
You mentioned earlier the importance of networking and building relationships, whether it’s with other key opinion leaders or within your own hospital system, like with cardiothoracic or vascular surgeons. What are some key factors that have contributed to your success in this area? Or conversely, are there mistakes to avoid?
I think the most crucial relationships are undoubtedly the local ones. For instance, developing a constructive relationship with the head of cardiac surgery or a vascular surgeon is vital. An adversarial stance can detrimentally affect an early-career interventional cardiologist. These complications often arise from conflicting incentives. Building trust, which often requires considerable self-sacrifice early on, is fundamental. It’s also increasingly important to consider relationships with nursing staff, cath lab techs, and trainees.
The culture in interventional cardiology has historically had its challenges, but there’s a significant shift towards a more respectful and collaborative environment. Managing these relationships effectively is crucial, especially when balancing clinical productivity and the stress of new procedures. Understanding the dynamics of teamwork and respect can make a substantial difference in navigating these challenges.
Let’s transition to some fun, rapid-fire questions. When you’re in the cath lab, do you listen to music, and if so, what’s typically on your playlist?
Well, for me, that's one way of building trust. I don’t usually pick the music so nurses get to be the DJ. But if it were up to me, it’d likely be '90s hip-hop or Michael Jackson. That probably dates me a bit.
How about movies? Any favorites?
The big three for me are probably Die Hard, The Godfather, and Hoop Dreams. That latter is an old documentary that won an Oscar. It’s excellent—hopefully, everyone’s watched the other two.
If you could go back to your mid-to-late 20s, just after med school, is there anything you’d tell your younger self?
Honestly, probably to work a little less. Work smarter, not harder.
Lastly, any events, congresses, or research podium talks coming up that you want to highlight?
The 2024 TCT Scientific Sessions in Washington DC will feature a lot of great late-breaking science. I am most interested in PEERLESS, the first randomized trial comparing two endovascular therapies for the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) and ECLIPSE, the first randomized trial of coronary atherectomy versus angioplasty.
VIVA/VEINS 2024 will also feature a lot of exciting new science. I’m excited for the first day-long PE symposium during this meeting, which will include late-breaking science related to novel thrombectomy platforms as well as the initial outcomes from the ELEGANCE Registry, an effort to study drug-eluting lower extremity devices in a population enriched for women and patients traditionally under-represented in clinical research.
Transitioning to more professional-related questions, reflecting on the business aspects of healthcare, are there concepts or topics you wish you had a better understanding of when you were coming out of residency and fellowship?
Yes, there are two aspects, one simpler and the other more complex.
The first is understanding professional fees and how to bill and code properly to ensure full credit for our work. This isn't typically taught in fellowships, but it's crucial to engage actively in billing, particularly in the last year or two of training. This helps avoid a long learning curve when starting practice. I've noticed my recent fellows engaging more, especially in their last six months, ensuring reports reflect the work done to secure full credit.
The second and more complex aspect concerns understanding hospital-level finances, which differ significantly from professional fees. This includes knowing the revenues and costs associated with the procedures we perform as interventionalists, such as the significant costs of disposable or implantable products and other expenses like personnel and hospital beds. Most healthcare funds flow through facilities rather than through professional fees, particularly in our specialty. Understanding this allows interventionalists to make nuanced arguments for resources and investments.
For the most part, decisions about resource allocation are often made by executives without domain-specific expertise, leading to misallocation. If more physicians understood the financial aspects of healthcare, they could be more effective advocates for their patients and programs. Significant misallocation of resources in healthcare happens because the people with domain-specific expertise aren't in the room. And this is because they're not considered appropriate decision-makers as they don't speak the language of contribution margins and/or total margins of the hospital.
You mentioned earlier the importance of networking and building relationships, whether it’s with other key opinion leaders or within your own hospital system, like with cardiothoracic or vascular surgeons. What are some key factors that have contributed to your success in this area? Or conversely, are there mistakes to avoid?
I think the most crucial relationships are undoubtedly the local ones. For instance, developing a constructive relationship with the head of cardiac surgery or a vascular surgeon is vital. An adversarial stance can detrimentally affect an early-career interventional cardiologist. These complications often arise from conflicting incentives. Building trust, which often requires considerable self-sacrifice early on, is fundamental. It’s also increasingly important to consider relationships with nursing staff, cath lab techs, and trainees.
The culture in interventional cardiology has historically had its challenges, but there’s a significant shift towards a more respectful and collaborative environment. Managing these relationships effectively is crucial, especially when balancing clinical productivity and the stress of new procedures. Understanding the dynamics of teamwork and respect can make a substantial difference in navigating these challenges.
Let’s transition to some fun, rapid-fire questions. When you’re in the cath lab, do you listen to music, and if so, what’s typically on your playlist?
Well, for me, that's one way of building trust. I don’t usually pick the music so nurses get to be the DJ. But if it were up to me, it’d likely be '90s hip-hop or Michael Jackson. That probably dates me a bit.
How about movies? Any favorites?
The big three for me are probably Die Hard, The Godfather, and Hoop Dreams. That latter is an old documentary that won an Oscar. It’s excellent—hopefully, everyone’s watched the other two.
If you could go back to your mid-to-late 20s, just after med school, is there anything you’d tell your younger self?
Honestly, probably to work a little less. Work smarter, not harder.
Lastly, any events, congresses, or research podium talks coming up that you want to highlight?
The 2024 TCT Scientific Sessions in Washington DC will feature a lot of great late-breaking science. I am most interested in PEERLESS, the first randomized trial comparing two endovascular therapies for the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) and ECLIPSE, the first randomized trial of coronary atherectomy versus angioplasty.
VIVA/VEINS 2024 will also feature a lot of exciting new science. I’m excited for the first day-long PE symposium during this meeting, which will include late-breaking science related to novel thrombectomy platforms as well as the initial outcomes from the ELEGANCE Registry, an effort to study drug-eluting lower extremity devices in a population enriched for women and patients traditionally under-represented in clinical research.
Transitioning to more professional-related questions, reflecting on the business aspects of healthcare, are there concepts or topics you wish you had a better understanding of when you were coming out of residency and fellowship?
Yes, there are two aspects, one simpler and the other more complex.
The first is understanding professional fees and how to bill and code properly to ensure full credit for our work. This isn't typically taught in fellowships, but it's crucial to engage actively in billing, particularly in the last year or two of training. This helps avoid a long learning curve when starting practice. I've noticed my recent fellows engaging more, especially in their last six months, ensuring reports reflect the work done to secure full credit.
The second and more complex aspect concerns understanding hospital-level finances, which differ significantly from professional fees. This includes knowing the revenues and costs associated with the procedures we perform as interventionalists, such as the significant costs of disposable or implantable products and other expenses like personnel and hospital beds. Most healthcare funds flow through facilities rather than through professional fees, particularly in our specialty. Understanding this allows interventionalists to make nuanced arguments for resources and investments.
For the most part, decisions about resource allocation are often made by executives without domain-specific expertise, leading to misallocation. If more physicians understood the financial aspects of healthcare, they could be more effective advocates for their patients and programs. Significant misallocation of resources in healthcare happens because the people with domain-specific expertise aren't in the room. And this is because they're not considered appropriate decision-makers as they don't speak the language of contribution margins and/or total margins of the hospital.
You mentioned earlier the importance of networking and building relationships, whether it’s with other key opinion leaders or within your own hospital system, like with cardiothoracic or vascular surgeons. What are some key factors that have contributed to your success in this area? Or conversely, are there mistakes to avoid?
I think the most crucial relationships are undoubtedly the local ones. For instance, developing a constructive relationship with the head of cardiac surgery or a vascular surgeon is vital. An adversarial stance can detrimentally affect an early-career interventional cardiologist. These complications often arise from conflicting incentives. Building trust, which often requires considerable self-sacrifice early on, is fundamental. It’s also increasingly important to consider relationships with nursing staff, cath lab techs, and trainees.
The culture in interventional cardiology has historically had its challenges, but there’s a significant shift towards a more respectful and collaborative environment. Managing these relationships effectively is crucial, especially when balancing clinical productivity and the stress of new procedures. Understanding the dynamics of teamwork and respect can make a substantial difference in navigating these challenges.
Let’s transition to some fun, rapid-fire questions. When you’re in the cath lab, do you listen to music, and if so, what’s typically on your playlist?
Well, for me, that's one way of building trust. I don’t usually pick the music so nurses get to be the DJ. But if it were up to me, it’d likely be '90s hip-hop or Michael Jackson. That probably dates me a bit.
How about movies? Any favorites?
The big three for me are probably Die Hard, The Godfather, and Hoop Dreams. That latter is an old documentary that won an Oscar. It’s excellent—hopefully, everyone’s watched the other two.
If you could go back to your mid-to-late 20s, just after med school, is there anything you’d tell your younger self?
Honestly, probably to work a little less. Work smarter, not harder.
Lastly, any events, congresses, or research podium talks coming up that you want to highlight?
The 2024 TCT Scientific Sessions in Washington DC will feature a lot of great late-breaking science. I am most interested in PEERLESS, the first randomized trial comparing two endovascular therapies for the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) and ECLIPSE, the first randomized trial of coronary atherectomy versus angioplasty.
VIVA/VEINS 2024 will also feature a lot of exciting new science. I’m excited for the first day-long PE symposium during this meeting, which will include late-breaking science related to novel thrombectomy platforms as well as the initial outcomes from the ELEGANCE Registry, an effort to study drug-eluting lower extremity devices in a population enriched for women and patients traditionally under-represented in clinical research.
