Dr. Venita Chandra is board-certified in both general and vascular surgery. She is a clinical professor of surgery in the Division of Vascular Surgery at Stanford University Medical Center. She also serves as the co-medical director of the Stanford Advanced Wound Care Center and the program director of the Vascular Surgery Fellowship and Vascular Surgery Residency Programs at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Dr. Chandra specializes in cutting-edge approaches to aortic aneurysmal disease, peripheral vascular disease, and limb salvage.
Shortly after you completed your fellowship training, was there a therapy area or subject matter you wish you were taught or had more experience in?
Great question. Everyone has their own unique experience with training. I felt my education was well-rounded and excellent. Like many in my specialty, vascular surgery, I focused on aortic work—it's considered sexier and more exciting. I enjoyed doing complex procedures. But then I got a job at Stanford, under the condition that I would run the Wound Care Center. Honestly, I cringed at the thought. It wasn't exciting or what I envisioned for my career. But it was the best job for me, so I rolled up my sleeves and got to work.
As I dove in, I immediately realized that while I understood peripheral vascular disease and managing peripheral arterial disease, the world of critical limb ischemia in an increasingly diabetic, complex vascular landscape was a whole other story. It was like jumping on a treadmill going ten miles an hour without training. I had to rapidly acquire those skills in various ways and now feel better equipped to handle the pace.
If it weren't for that requirement, do you think you would have delved into wound care and gained the same expertise in CLI?
It's hard to say, but I think dabbling in something makes you an okay surgeon, but diving in and drinking from the fire hose forces you to be much better. That experience helped me improve quickly and understand these complex patients comprehensively, from both wound care and vascular surgery perspectives. The sheer number of complex cases I saw accelerated my learning. I could give you a lengthy lecture on my mistakes in practically every area because there's a lot you can mess up, and I certainly did. But being able to fail quickly and learn from those mistakes was invaluable. So yes, being thrown in the deep end helped immensely in terms of gaining skills and knowledge rapidly.
Given your extensive research experience, what advice would you give to young physicians, residents, and fellows interested in starting research? What steps can they take to position themselves effectively early in their careers?
I think the bottom line is just finding what's interesting to you and then actually doing it. The classic notion of a surgeon-scientist, who excels in both surgery and basic science lab research, is largely outdated. It's still possible, but very difficult. Unfortunately, there's still this expectation that if you're going to do research you have to be this person on a pedestal who somehow has 48 hours in a day, not 24, and can do everything.
I knew I wasn’t that person. But because I was in an academic setting, that generally led us to ask questions. I knew that any simple question, if approached methodically and scientifically, could lead to interesting research. It doesn't have to be rocket science or next-generation science. The key is that it interests you or relates to your work.
For example, when I opened the Wound Care Center at Stanford, I saw the benefits firsthand and wondered if we were achieving better outcomes. It was a simple question that led to a simple study comparing outcomes three years before and after the center's opening. That study, which I initially thought was almost insignificant, got me on the podium at SVS and has been published and republished multiple times. It was the easiest study because it was interesting and I literally wanted to answer that question for myself.
My point is, you don't have to think big. You can take on projects that are interesting, digestible, and meaningful to you. Of course, some people are doing incredible research at a much greater level, but I'm just a simpleton.
Do you have a default framework or algorithm you typically use when addressing challenging calcific plaque?
Yes and no. I have an algorithm, but it requires frequent adjustment. This is partly why this patient population is so challenging – it's impossible to compare apples to apples in studies; they are so complex.
With heavily calcified vessels, the first priority is achieving luminal gain. This is easier said than done in severely calcified tibial vessels, where even getting anything to pass can be difficult. So the first step is crossing. Then, can I crack the plaque? Can I create any dilation to start gaining luminal space? If it's somewhat calcified but not severe, I'll try serration angioplasty, which I find effective. Compared to IVL, serration angioplasty allows using one balloon, potentially for the entire procedure, and there are longer balloon options available. However, both serration angioplasty and IVL currently have less-than-ideal crossing profiles.
For heavily calcified cases where I can predilate, IVL is my go-to, especially in the tibial and popliteal arteries. I'm becoming more aggressive with sizing, meaning oversizing the IVL balloon, while maintaining very low pressures to improve vessel compliance. I then follow with either a drug-coated balloon, if available or suitable, or a non-compliant balloon. I find following with balloon angioplasty to be very helpful.
If I can't pass anything for predilation, I'll try laser atherectomy. I have no personal experience with CSI as we don't have it at our hospital, but I know it's part of some people's algorithms. In some cases, laser atherectomy can create enough of a channel for me to proceed with the rest of my algorithm.
So, that's the rough outline of my approach.
Shifting to more professional-related questions. First, when you think about the broader business of healthcare, are there a few concepts or issues in general that you wish you had a better understanding of earlier in your career?
Yes and no. And I pause because some of the challenges and issues that we had when I started my career continue to be issues now – access to care, getting to our patients at an early enough stage, getting approval for their care, having them engaged and followed up, and actually participating in their care. All these things were issues then and still remain issues now, unfortunately.
As a follow-up, access to care seems to come up a lot with respect to CLI patients. If you had a magic wand, are there one or two things you wish would happen to get in front of those patients sooner, so you could treat them earlier in their disease progression?
Absolutely. I've seen a dramatic increase in "no-option" patients throughout my career. It makes you wonder if better diabetes control ten years ago could have prevented this.
I fear that there's a huge population of patients who are underserved, and they're getting attention for higher rates of amputation. This attention is true and necessary, but unfortunately, it's causing cynicism and distrust in the medical system. It's almost causing more trouble because it's been mostly negative attention instead of constructive solutions.
If you look at the heat map of vascular surgeons, there are many barren areas. Now, there are vascular interventionalists, cardiologists, and interventional radiologists who do great work as well, and they're helping with that. But when you correlate heat maps of amputation rates and lack of vascular surgeons, there's just so much work we need to do.
The solution is larger than this interview can address. We need to reach patients earlier and help them trust the system to prevent these outcomes. It's a win if I can help someone with a transmetatarsal amputation (TMA), but that still means losing a body part and altering their biomechanics. Wouldn't it be incredible if we could identify and treat these challenging patients before they lose any limbs?
Dr. Venita Chandra is board-certified in both general and vascular surgery. She is a clinical professor of surgery in the Division of Vascular Surgery at Stanford University Medical Center. She also serves as the co-medical director of the Stanford Advanced Wound Care Center and the program director of the Vascular Surgery Fellowship and Vascular Surgery Residency Programs at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Dr. Chandra specializes in cutting-edge approaches to aortic aneurysmal disease, peripheral vascular disease, and limb salvage.
Shortly after you completed your fellowship training, was there a therapy area or subject matter you wish you were taught or had more experience in?
Great question. Everyone has their own unique experience with training. I felt my education was well-rounded and excellent. Like many in my specialty, vascular surgery, I focused on aortic work—it's considered sexier and more exciting. I enjoyed doing complex procedures. But then I got a job at Stanford, under the condition that I would run the Wound Care Center. Honestly, I cringed at the thought. It wasn't exciting or what I envisioned for my career. But it was the best job for me, so I rolled up my sleeves and got to work.
As I dove in, I immediately realized that while I understood peripheral vascular disease and managing peripheral arterial disease, the world of critical limb ischemia in an increasingly diabetic, complex vascular landscape was a whole other story. It was like jumping on a treadmill going ten miles an hour without training. I had to rapidly acquire those skills in various ways and now feel better equipped to handle the pace.
If it weren't for that requirement, do you think you would have delved into wound care and gained the same expertise in CLI?
It's hard to say, but I think dabbling in something makes you an okay surgeon, but diving in and drinking from the fire hose forces you to be much better. That experience helped me improve quickly and understand these complex patients comprehensively, from both wound care and vascular surgery perspectives. The sheer number of complex cases I saw accelerated my learning. I could give you a lengthy lecture on my mistakes in practically every area because there's a lot you can mess up, and I certainly did. But being able to fail quickly and learn from those mistakes was invaluable. So yes, being thrown in the deep end helped immensely in terms of gaining skills and knowledge rapidly.
Given your extensive research experience, what advice would you give to young physicians, residents, and fellows interested in starting research? What steps can they take to position themselves effectively early in their careers?
I think the bottom line is just finding what's interesting to you and then actually doing it. The classic notion of a surgeon-scientist, who excels in both surgery and basic science lab research, is largely outdated. It's still possible, but very difficult. Unfortunately, there's still this expectation that if you're going to do research you have to be this person on a pedestal who somehow has 48 hours in a day, not 24, and can do everything.
I knew I wasn’t that person. But because I was in an academic setting, that generally led us to ask questions. I knew that any simple question, if approached methodically and scientifically, could lead to interesting research. It doesn't have to be rocket science or next-generation science. The key is that it interests you or relates to your work.
For example, when I opened the Wound Care Center at Stanford, I saw the benefits firsthand and wondered if we were achieving better outcomes. It was a simple question that led to a simple study comparing outcomes three years before and after the center's opening. That study, which I initially thought was almost insignificant, got me on the podium at SVS and has been published and republished multiple times. It was the easiest study because it was interesting and I literally wanted to answer that question for myself.
My point is, you don't have to think big. You can take on projects that are interesting, digestible, and meaningful to you. Of course, some people are doing incredible research at a much greater level, but I'm just a simpleton.
Do you have a default framework or algorithm you typically use when addressing challenging calcific plaque?
Yes and no. I have an algorithm, but it requires frequent adjustment. This is partly why this patient population is so challenging – it's impossible to compare apples to apples in studies; they are so complex.
With heavily calcified vessels, the first priority is achieving luminal gain. This is easier said than done in severely calcified tibial vessels, where even getting anything to pass can be difficult. So the first step is crossing. Then, can I crack the plaque? Can I create any dilation to start gaining luminal space? If it's somewhat calcified but not severe, I'll try serration angioplasty, which I find effective. Compared to IVL, serration angioplasty allows using one balloon, potentially for the entire procedure, and there are longer balloon options available. However, both serration angioplasty and IVL currently have less-than-ideal crossing profiles.
For heavily calcified cases where I can predilate, IVL is my go-to, especially in the tibial and popliteal arteries. I'm becoming more aggressive with sizing, meaning oversizing the IVL balloon, while maintaining very low pressures to improve vessel compliance. I then follow with either a drug-coated balloon, if available or suitable, or a non-compliant balloon. I find following with balloon angioplasty to be very helpful.
If I can't pass anything for predilation, I'll try laser atherectomy. I have no personal experience with CSI as we don't have it at our hospital, but I know it's part of some people's algorithms. In some cases, laser atherectomy can create enough of a channel for me to proceed with the rest of my algorithm.
So, that's the rough outline of my approach.
Shifting to more professional-related questions. First, when you think about the broader business of healthcare, are there a few concepts or issues in general that you wish you had a better understanding of earlier in your career?
Yes and no. And I pause because some of the challenges and issues that we had when I started my career continue to be issues now – access to care, getting to our patients at an early enough stage, getting approval for their care, having them engaged and followed up, and actually participating in their care. All these things were issues then and still remain issues now, unfortunately.
As a follow-up, access to care seems to come up a lot with respect to CLI patients. If you had a magic wand, are there one or two things you wish would happen to get in front of those patients sooner, so you could treat them earlier in their disease progression?
Absolutely. I've seen a dramatic increase in "no-option" patients throughout my career. It makes you wonder if better diabetes control ten years ago could have prevented this.
I fear that there's a huge population of patients who are underserved, and they're getting attention for higher rates of amputation. This attention is true and necessary, but unfortunately, it's causing cynicism and distrust in the medical system. It's almost causing more trouble because it's been mostly negative attention instead of constructive solutions.
If you look at the heat map of vascular surgeons, there are many barren areas. Now, there are vascular interventionalists, cardiologists, and interventional radiologists who do great work as well, and they're helping with that. But when you correlate heat maps of amputation rates and lack of vascular surgeons, there's just so much work we need to do.
The solution is larger than this interview can address. We need to reach patients earlier and help them trust the system to prevent these outcomes. It's a win if I can help someone with a transmetatarsal amputation (TMA), but that still means losing a body part and altering their biomechanics. Wouldn't it be incredible if we could identify and treat these challenging patients before they lose any limbs?
Dr. Venita Chandra is board-certified in both general and vascular surgery. She is a clinical professor of surgery in the Division of Vascular Surgery at Stanford University Medical Center. She also serves as the co-medical director of the Stanford Advanced Wound Care Center and the program director of the Vascular Surgery Fellowship and Vascular Surgery Residency Programs at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Dr. Chandra specializes in cutting-edge approaches to aortic aneurysmal disease, peripheral vascular disease, and limb salvage.
Shortly after you completed your fellowship training, was there a therapy area or subject matter you wish you were taught or had more experience in?
Great question. Everyone has their own unique experience with training. I felt my education was well-rounded and excellent. Like many in my specialty, vascular surgery, I focused on aortic work—it's considered sexier and more exciting. I enjoyed doing complex procedures. But then I got a job at Stanford, under the condition that I would run the Wound Care Center. Honestly, I cringed at the thought. It wasn't exciting or what I envisioned for my career. But it was the best job for me, so I rolled up my sleeves and got to work.
As I dove in, I immediately realized that while I understood peripheral vascular disease and managing peripheral arterial disease, the world of critical limb ischemia in an increasingly diabetic, complex vascular landscape was a whole other story. It was like jumping on a treadmill going ten miles an hour without training. I had to rapidly acquire those skills in various ways and now feel better equipped to handle the pace.
If it weren't for that requirement, do you think you would have delved into wound care and gained the same expertise in CLI?
It's hard to say, but I think dabbling in something makes you an okay surgeon, but diving in and drinking from the fire hose forces you to be much better. That experience helped me improve quickly and understand these complex patients comprehensively, from both wound care and vascular surgery perspectives. The sheer number of complex cases I saw accelerated my learning. I could give you a lengthy lecture on my mistakes in practically every area because there's a lot you can mess up, and I certainly did. But being able to fail quickly and learn from those mistakes was invaluable. So yes, being thrown in the deep end helped immensely in terms of gaining skills and knowledge rapidly.
Given your extensive research experience, what advice would you give to young physicians, residents, and fellows interested in starting research? What steps can they take to position themselves effectively early in their careers?
I think the bottom line is just finding what's interesting to you and then actually doing it. The classic notion of a surgeon-scientist, who excels in both surgery and basic science lab research, is largely outdated. It's still possible, but very difficult. Unfortunately, there's still this expectation that if you're going to do research you have to be this person on a pedestal who somehow has 48 hours in a day, not 24, and can do everything.
I knew I wasn’t that person. But because I was in an academic setting, that generally led us to ask questions. I knew that any simple question, if approached methodically and scientifically, could lead to interesting research. It doesn't have to be rocket science or next-generation science. The key is that it interests you or relates to your work.
For example, when I opened the Wound Care Center at Stanford, I saw the benefits firsthand and wondered if we were achieving better outcomes. It was a simple question that led to a simple study comparing outcomes three years before and after the center's opening. That study, which I initially thought was almost insignificant, got me on the podium at SVS and has been published and republished multiple times. It was the easiest study because it was interesting and I literally wanted to answer that question for myself.
My point is, you don't have to think big. You can take on projects that are interesting, digestible, and meaningful to you. Of course, some people are doing incredible research at a much greater level, but I'm just a simpleton.
Do you have a default framework or algorithm you typically use when addressing challenging calcific plaque?
Yes and no. I have an algorithm, but it requires frequent adjustment. This is partly why this patient population is so challenging – it's impossible to compare apples to apples in studies; they are so complex.
With heavily calcified vessels, the first priority is achieving luminal gain. This is easier said than done in severely calcified tibial vessels, where even getting anything to pass can be difficult. So the first step is crossing. Then, can I crack the plaque? Can I create any dilation to start gaining luminal space? If it's somewhat calcified but not severe, I'll try serration angioplasty, which I find effective. Compared to IVL, serration angioplasty allows using one balloon, potentially for the entire procedure, and there are longer balloon options available. However, both serration angioplasty and IVL currently have less-than-ideal crossing profiles.
For heavily calcified cases where I can predilate, IVL is my go-to, especially in the tibial and popliteal arteries. I'm becoming more aggressive with sizing, meaning oversizing the IVL balloon, while maintaining very low pressures to improve vessel compliance. I then follow with either a drug-coated balloon, if available or suitable, or a non-compliant balloon. I find following with balloon angioplasty to be very helpful.
If I can't pass anything for predilation, I'll try laser atherectomy. I have no personal experience with CSI as we don't have it at our hospital, but I know it's part of some people's algorithms. In some cases, laser atherectomy can create enough of a channel for me to proceed with the rest of my algorithm.
So, that's the rough outline of my approach.
Shifting to more professional-related questions. First, when you think about the broader business of healthcare, are there a few concepts or issues in general that you wish you had a better understanding of earlier in your career?
Yes and no. And I pause because some of the challenges and issues that we had when I started my career continue to be issues now – access to care, getting to our patients at an early enough stage, getting approval for their care, having them engaged and followed up, and actually participating in their care. All these things were issues then and still remain issues now, unfortunately.
As a follow-up, access to care seems to come up a lot with respect to CLI patients. If you had a magic wand, are there one or two things you wish would happen to get in front of those patients sooner, so you could treat them earlier in their disease progression?
Absolutely. I've seen a dramatic increase in "no-option" patients throughout my career. It makes you wonder if better diabetes control ten years ago could have prevented this.
I fear that there's a huge population of patients who are underserved, and they're getting attention for higher rates of amputation. This attention is true and necessary, but unfortunately, it's causing cynicism and distrust in the medical system. It's almost causing more trouble because it's been mostly negative attention instead of constructive solutions.
If you look at the heat map of vascular surgeons, there are many barren areas. Now, there are vascular interventionalists, cardiologists, and interventional radiologists who do great work as well, and they're helping with that. But when you correlate heat maps of amputation rates and lack of vascular surgeons, there's just so much work we need to do.
The solution is larger than this interview can address. We need to reach patients earlier and help them trust the system to prevent these outcomes. It's a win if I can help someone with a transmetatarsal amputation (TMA), but that still means losing a body part and altering their biomechanics. Wouldn't it be incredible if we could identify and treat these challenging patients before they lose any limbs?
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.
Let's talk about podium presentations and physician training. Imagine I'm a resident or fellow watching you present at VIVA or another congress and aspiring to do the same someday. What skills have been particularly helpful for you in enhancing your ability to present on stage?
First of all, practice. There are experts, and then there are experts who can present – those who can get on stage and whose presence and ability to communicate are just so much more effective. The medical system at large has typically put experts on stage no matter their presentation skills. We've been trying to change that a little at VIVA. I think being able to effectively communicate is very important. Caring about that, practicing, and recognizing that these are skills you may or may not naturally have is crucial. Being humble about that is important, too.
Personally, I had a huge fear of public speaking. It made me sick to my stomach, but I was encouraged to submit manuscripts and to present, because I was in an academic environment. I recognized the value of this, so I practiced, learned from others, and even took classes. I was fortunate enough to have a session with a professional presentation trainer. It's funny that I'm shaking my hands as I say this because one of her main points was to avoid that! In short, I learned and focused on improving my presentation skills.
The other key thing is having confidence in yourself. Imposter syndrome is real and can be a huge hang-up. I'm not saying you should get up there and claim to be an expert when you're not, but if you have any experience, exposure, ideas, or thoughts on something, that's all people want. So say ‘yes’, get up there. If you're given an opportunity, you have to be willing to do it if you want this to be part of your career.
Ultimately, it comes down to joy. Do you find joy in sharing your knowledge, data, or participating in training programs? If you do, then work on it, and you'll improve naturally, and that passion will shine through. If you don't, don't force it. There are plenty of other things to do. For example, getting involved in training. That's something I love. As a program director, I naturally enjoy teaching specific skills. I believe that enjoyment has helped me become good at it.
Pivoting to some fun, rapid-fire questions, when operating at Stanford, do you listen to music? If so, are there any must-have songs on your playlist?
My favorite, and you can ask my residents and techs, is hip hop bbq or old-school hip hop, like Gangsta's Paradise. The problem with listening to a hip hop bbq radio station, though it's epic, if you play it too long, it starts to get a bit naughtier and harsher. So you know you've been operating too long if hip hop bbq is no longer giving you the right vibes.
How about movies? Are there any all-time favorites or ones that you might watch if they're on TV?
I might embarrass myself with these because they're old, but one of my favorites is The Thomas Crown Affair. I also love Father of the Bride – I think I've seen it a million times! I'm not usually one to rewatch movies or shows, but those two are exceptions.
If you could go back to your mid-to late-20s, just out of medical school, what would you whisper in the ears of your younger self?
I would probably say, "Relax, enjoy the journey, and don't feel pressured to do everything at once. Take your time, pace yourself. It's a marathon, not a sprint."
Lastly, any events, congresses, or research you'd like to mention or raise awareness for?
As a VIVA board member, I'd like to highlight all that the foundation does. We do a lot of philanthropic work, scholarships through the AHA, and other partnerships. I believe VIVA is also one of the premier meetings of the year, especially for vascular surgeons. We're not always used to participating in meetings with other physician specialties, and I think there's huge value in that collaboration.
Let's talk about podium presentations and physician training. Imagine I'm a resident or fellow watching you present at VIVA or another congress and aspiring to do the same someday. What skills have been particularly helpful for you in enhancing your ability to present on stage?
First of all, practice. There are experts, and then there are experts who can present – those who can get on stage and whose presence and ability to communicate are just so much more effective. The medical system at large has typically put experts on stage no matter their presentation skills. We've been trying to change that a little at VIVA. I think being able to effectively communicate is very important. Caring about that, practicing, and recognizing that these are skills you may or may not naturally have is crucial. Being humble about that is important, too.
Personally, I had a huge fear of public speaking. It made me sick to my stomach, but I was encouraged to submit manuscripts and to present, because I was in an academic environment. I recognized the value of this, so I practiced, learned from others, and even took classes. I was fortunate enough to have a session with a professional presentation trainer. It's funny that I'm shaking my hands as I say this because one of her main points was to avoid that! In short, I learned and focused on improving my presentation skills.
The other key thing is having confidence in yourself. Imposter syndrome is real and can be a huge hang-up. I'm not saying you should get up there and claim to be an expert when you're not, but if you have any experience, exposure, ideas, or thoughts on something, that's all people want. So say ‘yes’, get up there. If you're given an opportunity, you have to be willing to do it if you want this to be part of your career.
Ultimately, it comes down to joy. Do you find joy in sharing your knowledge, data, or participating in training programs? If you do, then work on it, and you'll improve naturally, and that passion will shine through. If you don't, don't force it. There are plenty of other things to do. For example, getting involved in training. That's something I love. As a program director, I naturally enjoy teaching specific skills. I believe that enjoyment has helped me become good at it.
Pivoting to some fun, rapid-fire questions, when operating at Stanford, do you listen to music? If so, are there any must-have songs on your playlist?
My favorite, and you can ask my residents and techs, is hip hop bbq or old-school hip hop, like Gangsta's Paradise. The problem with listening to a hip hop bbq radio station, though it's epic, if you play it too long, it starts to get a bit naughtier and harsher. So you know you've been operating too long if hip hop bbq is no longer giving you the right vibes.
How about movies? Are there any all-time favorites or ones that you might watch if they're on TV?
I might embarrass myself with these because they're old, but one of my favorites is The Thomas Crown Affair. I also love Father of the Bride – I think I've seen it a million times! I'm not usually one to rewatch movies or shows, but those two are exceptions.
If you could go back to your mid-to late-20s, just out of medical school, what would you whisper in the ears of your younger self?
I would probably say, "Relax, enjoy the journey, and don't feel pressured to do everything at once. Take your time, pace yourself. It's a marathon, not a sprint."
Lastly, any events, congresses, or research you'd like to mention or raise awareness for?
As a VIVA board member, I'd like to highlight all that the foundation does. We do a lot of philanthropic work, scholarships through the AHA, and other partnerships. I believe VIVA is also one of the premier meetings of the year, especially for vascular surgeons. We're not always used to participating in meetings with other physician specialties, and I think there's huge value in that collaboration.
Let's talk about podium presentations and physician training. Imagine I'm a resident or fellow watching you present at VIVA or another congress and aspiring to do the same someday. What skills have been particularly helpful for you in enhancing your ability to present on stage?
First of all, practice. There are experts, and then there are experts who can present – those who can get on stage and whose presence and ability to communicate are just so much more effective. The medical system at large has typically put experts on stage no matter their presentation skills. We've been trying to change that a little at VIVA. I think being able to effectively communicate is very important. Caring about that, practicing, and recognizing that these are skills you may or may not naturally have is crucial. Being humble about that is important, too.
Personally, I had a huge fear of public speaking. It made me sick to my stomach, but I was encouraged to submit manuscripts and to present, because I was in an academic environment. I recognized the value of this, so I practiced, learned from others, and even took classes. I was fortunate enough to have a session with a professional presentation trainer. It's funny that I'm shaking my hands as I say this because one of her main points was to avoid that! In short, I learned and focused on improving my presentation skills.
The other key thing is having confidence in yourself. Imposter syndrome is real and can be a huge hang-up. I'm not saying you should get up there and claim to be an expert when you're not, but if you have any experience, exposure, ideas, or thoughts on something, that's all people want. So say ‘yes’, get up there. If you're given an opportunity, you have to be willing to do it if you want this to be part of your career.
Ultimately, it comes down to joy. Do you find joy in sharing your knowledge, data, or participating in training programs? If you do, then work on it, and you'll improve naturally, and that passion will shine through. If you don't, don't force it. There are plenty of other things to do. For example, getting involved in training. That's something I love. As a program director, I naturally enjoy teaching specific skills. I believe that enjoyment has helped me become good at it.
Pivoting to some fun, rapid-fire questions, when operating at Stanford, do you listen to music? If so, are there any must-have songs on your playlist?
My favorite, and you can ask my residents and techs, is hip hop bbq or old-school hip hop, like Gangsta's Paradise. The problem with listening to a hip hop bbq radio station, though it's epic, if you play it too long, it starts to get a bit naughtier and harsher. So you know you've been operating too long if hip hop bbq is no longer giving you the right vibes.
How about movies? Are there any all-time favorites or ones that you might watch if they're on TV?
I might embarrass myself with these because they're old, but one of my favorites is The Thomas Crown Affair. I also love Father of the Bride – I think I've seen it a million times! I'm not usually one to rewatch movies or shows, but those two are exceptions.
If you could go back to your mid-to late-20s, just out of medical school, what would you whisper in the ears of your younger self?
I would probably say, "Relax, enjoy the journey, and don't feel pressured to do everything at once. Take your time, pace yourself. It's a marathon, not a sprint."
Lastly, any events, congresses, or research you'd like to mention or raise awareness for?
As a VIVA board member, I'd like to highlight all that the foundation does. We do a lot of philanthropic work, scholarships through the AHA, and other partnerships. I believe VIVA is also one of the premier meetings of the year, especially for vascular surgeons. We're not always used to participating in meetings with other physician specialties, and I think there's huge value in that collaboration.
