Dr. Galen Wagner (1939-2016) as an Academic Writer: An Overview of his Peer-reviewed Scientific Publications (original) (raw)
Related papers
In memory of Professor Galen S. Wagner M.D., Ph.D. (1939–2016): our mentor, colleague and friend
Journal of Electrocardiology, 2017
that offers research programs in countries throughout the world that has been ongoing for already eleven years. In the period from 2006 to August 2016, seventeen IRIS courses were organized in ten countries on three continents. Galen Wagner was present in all courses-either in person or via Skype. As the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Electrocardiology he encouraged participants to write and submit manuscripts to scientific journals, explained how to benefit from reviewers comments and involved participants as reviewers for the Journal of Electrocardiology, stressing the review process as a tool to develop further critical thinking, and also to improve one's own writing. Galen combined passion and intensity with unusual modesty about his own accomplishments, giving credit to others' achievements. He was a worldknown scientist in electrocardiology and cardiology who trained directly and indirectly thousands of physicians around the world. Galen's legacy is amazing and expressed in so many ways by his textbooks, excellent research, leadership at the Journal of Electrocardiology, by his inspiration for so many clinicians and researchers. We promise to continue in the IRIS mission and develop further these international courses, to utilize this unique program.
Journal of Electrocardiology, 2017
This paper describes a substantial part of the international mentoring network of students and young investigators in electrocardiology that developed around Dr. Galen Wagner (1939-2016), including many experiences of his mentees and co-mentors. The paper is meant to stimulate thinking about international mentoring as a means to achieve important learning experiences and personal development of young investigators, to intensify international scientific cooperation, and to stimulate scientific production.
Cardiology and the Cardiologist - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 2019
Cardiology as a medical specialty has been built from scientific knowledge derived from basic and clinical areas and from the development of technological devices that enabled us to study and understand the cardiovascular system. Two technological disruptive capacitors were: the stethoscope and the electrocardiogram, which allowed for the construction of two new “sciences”, the eletroctrocardiography and the phonomecanography. Certainly, the complexity of understanding the eletroctrocardiography and its electroclinical correlation has made Cardiology to become a specialty independent from clinical medicine, in the early 20th century. In the post-war years, technical-scientific developments allowed Cardiology to be prepared to become a solid area of action, and enabled the new search for therapeutic approaches, which contributed to the increased survival rates observed in basically all cardiopathies.
American Heart Journal, 1998
Implantation Trial (MADIT)I was a randomized clinical trial comparing patients receiving prophylactic therapy for coronary disease with asymptomatic, nonsustalned ventricular tachycardia (3 to 30 beats) and an implanted defibrillator with conventional medical therapy in patients with previous myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction. In this study, the pattern and predictors of shock delivery in the implantable defibrillator arm of the trial were examined. Ninety patients with inducible but not suppressible ventricular tachycardia at electrophysiologic testing, mean age 62 _+ 9, mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 27% -+ 7%, who received an implantable defibrillator were followed-up for up to 5 years. Patients who received shocks (group 1, n = 44) were compared with those who did not receive shocks (group 2) regarding their demographic, clinical, arrhythmia, and electrophysiologic characteristics.The mean ejection fraction of patients receiving shocks was slightly lower (26% + 7%) than those who did not (28% + 6%, p = 0.09).At baseline, group 1 had a higher incidence of more than one myocardial infarction than did group 2 (49% vs 24%,p = 0.013) and a trend toward more diabetes.There was no other clinical difference between groups and no significant difference in the use of drug therapy, coronary artery bypass grafting, or percutaneous transltuninal coronary angioplasty. Both groups had simi-Interpretation: In MADIT patients who received implantable defibrillators, history of recurrent myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and longer ventricular tachycardia episodes were associated with an increased incidence of shock delivery.