ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2026
Perfect Matchmaking: A Deep Dive Into the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Match 2025.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Interventional Cardiology Match: From Milestone to Momentum.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In July 2024, interventional cardiology (IC) fellowship recruitment transitioned to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), representing a major step toward standardizing a process that had long lacked transparency and consistency. This transition followed years of advocacy by professional societies and aimed to improve applicant-program alignment while reducing administrative burden. Evaluating program participation, recruitment practices, and match performance during the inaugural cycle is essential for informing improvements to future recruitment. Methods: This descriptive study analyzed three data sources: NRMP match outcomes, Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) metrics, and a mixed-methods survey of IC program directors. The survey was developed using established research methodology, refined through pilot testing, and distributed electronically to all ERAS-registered IC programs. Quantitative and qualitative data on recruitment strategies, interview formats, outreach, and program satisfaction were collected. Participation was voluntary, responses were anonymized, and ethical approval was obtained when required. Thirty-five percent of eligible programs participated. Results: Match outcomes closely paralleled historical trends; however, 16.6% of IC fellowship positions remained unfilled. Most programs reported satisfaction with the NRMP transition, citing improved structure and reduced stress. Challenges included overlapping timelines with general cardiology recruitment, limited opportunities for faculty-applicant engagement, and administrative strain. Programs that broadened applicant outreach, conducted structured interview days, and ranked more candidates per position achieved higher fill rates. Virtual interviews were widely favored for convenience, although some programs desired hybrid or in-person options. Lessons from electrophysiology's earlier NRMP transition underscored the value of clear communication, coordinated timelines, and technology-enhanced recruitment. Conclusions: The inaugural IC NRMP match represents a positive evolution in fellowship recruitment. Addressing challenges related to timelines, outreach, and interview logistics will be essential to optimizing future recruitment cycles and strengthening the specialty's long-term growth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.