English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Political bodies and professional societies acknowledge that translational research benefits from researchers trained in both, clinical medicine and basic science. Yet, few physicians undergoing clinical training in cardiology seek this dual career (Milewicz et al. J Clin Invest 125:3742-3747, 2015). The reasons are likely manifold, but with cardiology having become increasingly interventional and facing economic pressure, how much attention, credit, and encouragement is given to physicians interested in basic cardiovascular science? Having studied and worked in hospitals and laboratories, in both Germany and the USA, we aim to compare in this article how basic science education is currently integrated into cardiology training at German and US university hospitals, from medical school to more advanced career stages. By doing so, we hope to provide some outside perspectives to young physicians and decision makers alike, that may inspire changes to curricula in the respective countries and around the world.

Integrating basic science in academic cardiology training: two international perspectives on a common challenge