Background: Cardiology fellows, in particular, are in a unique position to mold the new cardiovascular workforce, especially in terms of risk prevention. There is a growing need for the cardiovascular workforce. In the United States, one person dies every forty-two seconds due to a cardiovascular adverse event. Methods: A PRISMA systematic review included comprehensive search of the MED-LINE database (PubMed) from 1927 to 2020-the oldest to newest available literature on the subject available through PubMed. Results: Fifty-seven cardiology fellows together interpreted a total of 1719 EKGs with a correct rate of 52%. Sixty-four fellows completed a total of 1363 echocardiography interpretations with an accuracy rate of nearly 75%. Conclusion: Based on the studies discussed, it is evident that a cardiology fellow, particularly in their early years of training, may be limited due to a lack of experience. With continued EKG and echocardiogram interpretation, as well as other clinical skills practice, fellows can improve their diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency.

Background In the United States, echocardiography is an essential component of the care of many cardiac patients. Recently, increased attention has been given to the accuracy of interpretation of cardiac-based procedures in different specialties, amongst them the field of cardiac anesthesiology and primary echocardiographers for transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE). The purpose of this study was to assess the TEE skills of cardiac anesthesiologists in comparison to primary echocardiographers, either radiologists or cardiologists. In this systematic review, we evaluated available current literature to identify if cardiac anesthesiologists interpret TEE procedures at an identical level to that of primary echocardiographers. Methods A PRISMA systematic review was utilized from PubMed from the years 1952–2022. A broad keyword search of “Cardiology Anesthesiology Echocardiogram” and “Echocardiography Anesthesiology” to identify the literature was used. From reviewing 1798 articles, there were a total of 9 studies included in our systematic review, 3 of which yielded quantitative data and 6 of which yielded qualitative data. The mean accuracy from each of these three qualitative studies was calculated and used to represent the overall accuracy of cardiac anesthesiologists. Results Through identified studies, a total of 8197 TEEs were interpreted by cardiac anesthesiologists with a concordance rate of 84% to the interpretations of primary echocardiographers. Cardiac anesthesiologists had a concordance rate of 83% when compared to radiologists. On the other hand, cardiac anesthesiologists and cardiologists had a concordance rate of 87% in one study and 79% in another study. Conclusion Based on these studies, cardiac anesthesiologists are shown to interpret TEEs similarly to that of primary echocardiographers. At this time, there is no gold standard to evaluate the accuracy of TEE readings. One way to address this is to individually assess the TEE interpretation of anesthesiologists and primary echocardiographers with a double-blind study.