A-CURE 2024 Abstracts

Thank you for joining us in scoring some of the best and brightest research in unloading today. Your experience and knowledge is key in making sure we are carving the path for heart recovery with the next generation of physicians and scientists.

How to Score Abstracts

A-CURE Faculty Reviewer Name(Required)
I acknowledge the data presented in the abstracts is confidential and the intellectual property of the authors. Distribution of the abstract or data in any form is prohibited without the author's permission.(Required)

Section – Abstract 01

Abstract Paper #01:

European practices on antithrombotic management during percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in adults: A survey of the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC) of the ESC and the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (EuroELSO)

AB_01: Do you have any conflict of interests in scoring this abstract ?(Required)
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567

Section – Abstract 02

Abstract Paper #02:

Blood speckle imaging in critical care: A new tool in mechanical circulatory support management

AB_02: Do you have any conflict of interests in scoring this abstract ?(Required)
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567

Section – Abstract 03

Abstract Paper #03:

Prognostic implication and hemodynamic characteristics of modified SCAI class in comatose OHCA patients: data from the BOX trial

AB_03: Do you have any conflict of interests in scoring this abstract ?(Required)
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567

Section – Outro

You've reached the end, Congrats!
Please hit the yellow Submit Final Scoring button below.
Thank you once more for your time and effort as an A-CURE Faculty member.
Award selections will be made and announced soon.

How to Score

All abstracts are scored on a 1-7 point scale (1 = lowest; 7 = highest) in each of the following categories:

- Scientific merit

- Innovation

- Clarity

- Effectiveness of presentation

- Overall alignment with the goals of A-CURE

The highest scoring submissions will be awarded a "Young Investigator" Scholarship, a "Best in Research" Scholarship and eight (8) "Research Merit" Scholarships.

Categories:

Impact Score Descriptor Additional Guidance
High 7 Outstanding Extremely strong; negligible weakness
6 Excellent Very strong; some minor weaknesses
Medium 5 Very Good Strong; numerous minor weaknesses
4 Good At least 1 moderate weakness
3 Satisfactory At least one major weakness
Low 2 Fair At least one major weakness
1 Poor Major weaknesses identified
Minor Weakness: An easily addressable weakness
Moderate Weakness: A weakness that lessens impact
Major Weakness: A weakness that severely limits impact

Scientific Merit (1-7):
Does the abstract present a reasonable hypothesis? Is the overall experimental design appropriate to address this hypothesis? Are appropriate statistical tests conducted?

Innovation (1-7):
Is the hypothesis completely original? Does the research significantly progress an established paradigm forward? Does the abstract address an unresolved or cutting-edge issue? Does the abstract provide novel and important insight? Does the work address knowledge gaps in the field? Is the work “high-risk, high-reward”, or could it be better classified as “safe?”

Clarity and Effectiveness of Presentation (1-7):
Is the abstract written in a way that is suitable for publication? Are the rationale and hypothesis clearly stated and logically coherent? Is the abstract easily understandable and accessible to even those not completely familiar with the subject matter?

Alignment with the Goals of the A-CURE (1-7):
Does the abstract generally address a question of scientific merit and interest to the field of myocardial salvage, cardiac recovery after myocardial infarct, acute cardiac unloading, or any technology related to the therapy or treatment thereof?