Confronting Controversy

By Craig McChesney
 

The primary goal of Endovascular Today is to bring the members of the interventional community timely and interesting articles on the most important developments and findings in endovascular care. In order to achieve this goal, we work closely with our chief medical editors, editorial advisory board, contributing authors, readers, and representatives from industry. We have been fortunate to enjoy an open and productive relationship with each, resulting in an abundance of valuable content to include in each of our issues.
With our role in the endovascular community comes a set of front-row tickets to some of the most controversial and hotly contested debates the field has to offer, which has provided us with access to the perspectives and experiences unique to each. As you might imagine—and have most likely experienced for yourself—these perspectives are often quite incompatible to say the least. This may be due to the vast amount of innovation we’re currently witnessing in the endovascular arena; with innovation come comparison and competition, both with previously held standards and with other emerging concepts.

Manufacturers and proponents of today’s new therapeutic options are often passionate with respect to their beliefs regarding the options they represent or support, and some are just as passionate when it comes to their disapproval of those technologies or procedures that are based on opposing approaches to vascular care. As a publication interested in ensuring that these parties are satisfied with the value of the information we provide, the passion of these disagreements has not made our job easy, but it has made for some remarkably interesting content.

From our vantage in the front row, it is clear that these debates will continue unabated as long as new techniques and technology are developed. We are pleased, however, to periodically host them within our pages, such that each side has the opportunity to state its case, and that our readers may be better equipped to discuss and address the issues at hand in their own facilities.

For this, our first Controversies in Technology issue, our Chief Medical Editors have selected five of what they believe to be the most hotly contested debates in the field today. We’ve worked hard to include perspectives from physicians respected for their continued excellence in the areas they discuss, and we are very impressed with the arguments they have made in defense of their beliefs and in response to those of others. These articles likely do not represent the sum of all concerns regarding their respective topics, and their publication may in fact exacerbate rather than quell the somewhat combative passions that fuel these debates. It is our hope, however, that providing this forum will serve to apprise our readers of the philosophical foundations of each debate, as well as present the latest information every side has to offer.
We hope you find this first-of-its kind issue of Endovascular Today to be informative, interesting, and of practical use to you in your approach to providing superb care to your patients. As always, your thoughts are welcome and appreciated. 
 

Contact Info

For advertising rates and opportunities, contact:
Craig McChesney
484-581-1816
cmcchesney@bmctoday.com

Stephen Hoerst
484-581-1817
shoerst@bmctoday.com

Charles Philip
484-581-1873
cphillip@bmctoday.com

About Endovascular Today

Endovascular Today is a publication dedicated to bringing you comprehensive coverage of all the latest technology, techniques, and developments in the endovascular field. Our Editorial Advisory Board is composed of the top endovascular specialists, including interventional cardiologists, interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons, neurologists, and vascular medicine practitioners, and our publication is read by an audience of more than 22,000 members of the endovascular community.