Cardiology papers, questioned at clinical depth.
JAMA Cardiology Author Interviews is a clinical research companion for cardiovascular medicine. Episodes move from manuscript question to study design, findings, limitations, and practice implications with authors and JAMA editors at the table.
PRESS PLAY
JAMA Cardiology Author Interviews treats cardiovascular research as a conversation that has to survive careful questioning. The format is simple. A JAMA Cardiology editor introduces a recently published manuscript, brings in the author or an accompanying editorial voice, and works through the study's premise, design, results, limits, and practical meaning. It is not a newsy recap. It is closer to a guided reading of the paper, with enough clinical context to show why the question matters and enough methodological detail to keep the discussion anchored. Recent episodes range widely across cardiology. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction appears through both TTR amyloid research in older Black and Hispanic individuals and longer-term follow-up from personalized accelerated physiologic pacing. Atrial fibrillation returns in several forms, from remote monitoring and European Society for Cardiology research summaries to genetic testing questions around cardiomyopathy-associated variants. Prevention is a steady thread. Episodes consider CT coronary angiography as a way to influence lipid-lowering therapy, pharmacist referrals for evidence-based statin initiation, and population-level sodium reduction in South Africa. The show also spends real time on who gets studied. Its discussion of clinical trial representativeness focuses on recruitment, language barriers, health literacy, community trust, site support, digital outreach, travel costs, and the funding needed to include populations that have often been missed. The register is polished and academic. Still, the strongest exchanges are practical: what counts as a meaningful endpoint, how much confidence longer follow-up adds, why a subgroup result matters, and where clinicians should avoid underdiagnosis or undertreatment. Listeners hear editors and researchers challenge one another respectfully, often with an eye toward implementation rather than novelty alone. The result is a compact, journal-linked series for people who want cardiology evidence explained with rigor, context, and restraint.
Made for: This show is for cardiologists, cardiovascular researchers, trainees, and evidence-focused clinicians who want direct context around JAMA Cardiology studies. It also suits medical listeners who prefer measured editorial discussion over simplified health advice.
What sets it apart: The show stands out by pairing article authors with JAMA Cardiology editors who press on design choices, endpoints, representativeness, and clinical translation. It stays close to the published evidence while still explaining why the findings matter in practice.
Interviews with authors of articles from JAMA Cardiology. JAMA Cardiology publishes exceptional original research, state-of-the-art reviews, and informative opinions that advance the science and practice of cardiology, enhance cardiovascular health, and inform health care policy. JAMA Cardiology is the definitive journal for clinical investigators, clinicians, and trainees in cardiovascular medicine worldwide.JAMA Cardiology focuses on all aspects of cardiovascular medicine, including epidemiology and prevention, diagnostic testing, interventional and pharmacologic therapeutics, translational research, health care policy and outcomes, and global health.
Based on 5 episodes we listened to · August 2026
Study authors walk trial design, statistical limits, and enrollment gaps through with JAMA Cardiology's hosts, one paper at a time.
JAMA Cardiology Author Interviews sticks to one well-defined space: cardiovascular research published in the journal, discussed by the people who actually ran the studies.
You get the trial readout, then the part where the caveats put on a tie.
Press play if you want
Short reviews from the PlayNext desk, based on the episodes we processed.
A cardiology congress roundup finds its value in weighing promising results against the limits of the evidence.
Cardiology evidence gets a practical stress test in this special JAMA Editor's Summary on research presented at the European Society for Cardiology Congress.
A focused look at how deliberate enrollment can reshape thinking about cardiac amyloidosis diagnosis.
The SCAN-MP study gives this episode its focus: how transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis shows up in older Black and Hispanic people with heart failure, and what more intentional enrollment can uncover about diagnosis.
Longer-term MyPACE follow-up asks whether a higher resting heart rate belongs in the HFpEF pacing conversation.
HFpEF often makes the slower-heart-rate argument sound logical: more time should mean better filling. This PlayNext review finds the MyPACE discussion useful because it pushes against that instinct with longer-term follow-up in patients paced to raise resting heart rate. Dr.
A grounded discussion of how clinical trials can better reflect the people they are meant to serve.
Clinical trial representativeness is treated here as a practical design challenge, not an abstract ideal. Bob Bono and Dr. Roxana Moran keep the focus on what it takes to reach patients who have historically been difficult to enroll: community engagement, attention to social…
A concise look at how CT angiography may make preventive therapy feel more actionable.
A CT scan can make preventive cardiology feel less like a risk estimate and more like something a patient can see. This JAMA Cardiology conversation keeps its focus on that practical turn, as Anne-Marie Navar asks Dr. Michael McDermott and Dr.
Oncology evidence translated into clinical decisions.
Critical care evidence, carefully talked through.
Clinical research, reduced to its practical signal.
JAMA editors discuss cardiology research presented at the European Society for Cardiology Congress, including trials on atrial fibrillation screening.
Among 650 participants, cardiac amyloidosis was about 6.5% to 7% overall and 17% in men over 75.
Three people switched from usual care to "my pace," and all three felt better and stayed there.
Dr. Roxana Moran says trial inclusiveness must start with inclusion and exclusion criteria, patient recruitment, and retention.
Anne-Marie Navar speaks with Michael McDermott of the University of Edinburgh and Pam Douglas of Duke University about a nested SPOT-HART 2 study in JAMA Cardiology.
The study found cardiomyopathy-associated variants were twice as common among people with atrial fibrillation, rising to five times as common when AF began before age 45.
Dr.
JAMA Cardiology Author Interviews compares South Africa’s sodium legislation with China’s SAS salt-substitution trial.
An interview with researchers discussing the viability sub-study of the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial on PCI for patients with severe coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction.
An interview with researchers discussing a study on tracking treatment response in cardiac AL amyloidosis using native T1 mapping.
An interview with the new editor-in-chief of JAMA discussing her career trajectory and interest in cardiovascular disease prevention.