Latest articles

In the UK, the majority (90%) of hypertension is managed in primary care. Yet, for the 10% who require secondary-care input, there is no specialist register for doctors who manage hypertension. There is a mismatch across the nations with regards to access to secondary care for management of complex hypertension cases. Heterogeneity exists in terms of local specialist services, referral pathways, and specialties overseeing care.

We polled across primary care in the UK to assess accessibility to a local specialist hypertension clinic, the clinical reasons for referral and the specialty referred to. Cardiology was by far and away the leading specialty for referrals. Yet the vast majority of cardiology trainees in the UK are receiving minimal, if any, specialist training in hypertension. A cardiology registrar is likely to spend substantially more days on-call for general medicine than the amount of specialist clinics they can attend in hypertension.

We are facing a major deficit in the specialist management of hypertension if the trainees of today are not ready to provide the required expertise and oversight for the complex cases of tomorrow.

The burden of hypertension in the UK is profound.¹ It is the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease and vascular dementia, affecting approximately 30% of adults, with an estimated 4.2 million remaining undiagnosed – an alarming figure that underscores longstanding gaps between evidence and implementation in routine care.^2–5 Against this backdrop, the British and Irish Hypertension Society (BIHS), in partnership with the British Heart Foundation Clinical Research Collaborative (BHF‑CRC), has developed the first national, consensus‑driven effort to define future research priorities in hypertension.⁶ This represents a landmark initiative: a structured attempt to align research, policy, and clinical services with the realities of modern hypertension care.

Over eight million UK citizens are at unnecessary risk of the avoidable consequences of hypertension because of inadequate blood pressure (BP) control.¹ Improving this is a key objective of the Department of Health and Social Care, and is one of the five major priorities in the NHSE Core20PLUS5 approach to reducing healthcare inequalities.² The national emphasis on hypertension case finding and management requires a significant increase in the availability of specialist advice and management, which can improve control and outcomes.

Conduction system pacing (CSP) ― encompassing His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle-branch area pacing (LBBAP) ― delivers more physiological ventricular pacing compared with traditional right ventricular (RV) pacing. It is gaining traction beyond tertiary centres, however, evidence from district general hospitals (DGHs) remains limited. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, electrical performance, and early clinical outcomes of CSP implemented in a UK DGH.

We performed a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive patients who underwent successful CSP at Chesterfield Royal Hospital. HBP implants (n=20) were performed between June 2019 and August 2022; LBBAP implants (n=71) between January 2023 and May 2025. Baseline demographics, procedural metrics, pacing parameters, complications, heart-failure (HF) readmissions, and echocardiographic data to 12 months were obtained from electronic records.

Ninety-one patients (mean age 76 ± 10 years; 69% male) received CSP, most commonly for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) (40%) or anticipated high right-ventricular pacing burden (42%). LBBAP demonstrated lower implant thresholds than HBP (0.92 ± 0.44 V vs. 1.50 ± 0.77 V) and remained stable to 12 months (0.68 ± 0.25 V). HBP thresholds rose to 2.11 ± 1.49 V at 12 months. Screening time was shorter with LBBAP (9.6 ± 5.9 min) than HBP (14.4 ± 6.8 min, p<0.01). No infections or septal haematomas occurred. Lead revision was required in two HBP recipients and none with LBBAP (hazard ratio 17.14, p=0.067). Nine patients (9.9%) were readmitted with HF, occurring between 56 and 1,500 days post-implant.

In conclusion, CSP can be implemented safely and effectively in a DGH setting. LBBAP offers superior electrical stability, shorter procedure time, and less lead revisions, supporting its preferential adoption as the default pacing strategy for CSP.

A nurse-led heart murmur clinic was introduced at Sheffield Children’s Hospital in 2023 to reduce waiting times, support the clinical nurse specialist (CNS) role development, and improve cost-efficiency. By triaging appropriate referrals to a CNS-led pathway with pre-arranged echocardiography and telephone follow-up, the clinic reduced wait times from 16 to 5–6 weeks and saved over £3,000 in its first year. The model demonstrates that nurse-led services can safely and effectively manage selected paediatric referrals, improve access to care, and deliver measurable service efficiencies.

Anxiety is common in people with coronary artery disease (CAD), particularly in association with invasive procedures and investigations. Effective provision of information for patients is crucial, but traditional methods may fail to adequately inform or engage some patients. We aimed to synthesise clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of video animations provided to patients with CAD.

We performed a systematic review of Medline, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO from January 2000 to January 2025. Conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and presented with a narrative synthesis.

Five randomised-controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Four included video animations, and one a ‘whiteboard animation’. Each evaluated the animations as an addition to standard care. Patient knowledge was improved in all four trials that assessed it, and anxiety was reduced in two out of four trials that assessed it. There was some evidence of beneficial effects of animations on satisfaction and health behaviours. The quality of evidence was not strong, with two trials having a high risk of bias.

In conclusion, video animations show potential for their effects on knowledge and anxiety in patients with CAD, but the evidence-base is small.

We present a case involving the discovery of an extracardiac mass during a routine ablation procedure for typical atrial flutter. Using multiple imaging modalities it was possible to assess the mass during the procedure, leading to successful completion of the ablation.

“There’s a ghost in the library”

Documentation in medicine has transformed in the last 10 years: notes no longer scatter across the floor to reveal hurriedly scribbled ward rounds without signature or ownership. In the digital era, we can proudly say that ‘if it wasn’t written down it didn’t happen’. By extension, in the modern world of acute echocardiography, if it wasn’t ‘uploaded and reported’, it didn’t happen. These ‘ghost studies’ roam hospital corridors ready to interfere with patient care in maverick ways. All we are left with clinically is a rumour that a study possibly happened. There should be zero ‘ghost studies’ in our library. But, evidently, the ghosts are yet to be busted.

Historically, young people with genetic heart diseases were discouraged from active sport due to concerns about the increased risk of sudden cardiac death during competitive or intensive exercise. The shock resulting from the sudden death of a young athlete, an event often highly publicised, tends to generate concern in the general population, and fear of litigation in a low-evidence area: both influence decision-making by the medical profession when discussing ‘restrictions’, especially in patients with genetic heart diseases, who by definition, are at increased risk of sudden cardiac death. In recent years, however, we have moved to a point where many athletes with certain genetic heart diseases can, with optimal medical therapy, be considered for involvement in various sporting and athletic pursuits. We are cautiously moving away from the assumption that exercise is contraindicated; we are factoring in the wishes of the patient-athlete (shared decision-making), and we are encouraging optimal protection for these athletes during their sporting endeavours (easily available automated external defibrillators [AEDs], and club personnel trained in basic life support [BLS]), while ensuring regular medical assessment to identify alterations in risk status. With dedicated follow-up of all such patient-athletes, we can refine our understanding of how best to advise (and protect) them in terms of exercise for enhanced quality of life.