DeMaria教授是JACC主编，曾任美国心脏病学会及美国超声心动学会主席、NIH诊断及放射组主席、美国内科学会心血管分会专家委员会成员，并在美国多个学术学会中任职，以第一及共同作者发表论文530余篇。

　　论文发表秘诀与要领

　　发表和介绍自己的研究是一项非常重要的工作，也是一门艺术和学问。我建议中国学者在开展科学研究工作时应同步进行相关文献的阅读，以便对不同期刊杂志的收录文章类型做到心中有数。投稿时判断自己应投哪个期刊杂志最简单的办法就是根据自己文章所引用的参考文献来进行初步判断。如果文章的参考文献以基础医学论著为主，则最好不要将文章投稿至临床杂志。一般来说，观察描述性研究，缺乏研究假设、仅对数据进行回顾性分析的研究以及缺乏对照的研究很难被高水平的期刊杂志所接收，是最容易被拒稿的。

　　领域热点聚焦

　　心脏影像学技术不断发展，我们现在已经有很多种可供选择的影像学检查方法。但是，一种检查通常难以解决所有的问题，因此心脏影像学技术要想真正发挥其在心血管治疗干预中的关键作用，则需要临床医生根据患者的具体情况和要解决的根本问题选择正确的影像学检查方法。若要确定患者是否存在冠状动脉堵塞可选用冠状动脉CTA，要想确定心肌存活情况则可选择放射性核素检查；要想评估左室功能，则可选择心脏超声检查。需要强调的是，虽然新技术的涌现为心血管疾病的诊疗带来了新选择，但临床实践中医生不能盲目地追求应用新技术。例如，在能采用更为简单经济的超声心动图来评估左室功能的情况下，就没有必要采用其他成本相对较高的新技术。

　　<International Circulation>: You presented a session talking about the point of view of submitting a manuscript from the JACC point of view.  There were other lectures you talked about from various journal points of view.  For a Chinese researcher or a group， how can they say or how can they get a feel for what might be the right journal for them to submit to or how do they get a feel for what is this journal’s point of view going to be or how might they receive my manuscript because even if they have done a great trial， maybe if they submit to the wrong journal it might not be accepted.

　　Dr. DeMaria: Sure. I think hopefully people who are doing research are also reading the literature and they go hand in hand.  If they’re reading the literature then they should have a pretty good idea of the kinds of material that are published in journals.  To me， the simplest thing is to look at your own references， to look at the papers you have cited.  If you have cited 25 papers in basic science then you don’t submit to a clinical journal.  It is kind of common sense that the material in your references is likely the material that the journal is interested in and so that is probably a good place to send it to.

　　<International Circulation>: In your talk you mentioned about some of the things you look for and editors look for.  What is perhaps the biggest mistake or a mistake that you see repeated quite often that see a lot of papers getting rejected for.  Is there anything in particular or 2 that are glaring that you see often?

　　Dr. DeMaria: I would say probably the biggest is observational descriptive studies that really do not have a hypothesis and they are looking retrospectively at the data base and there is no control.  Those studies have a hard time getting accepted to the competitive journals.

　　<International Circulation>: I would like to move on to imaging.  Cardiac imaging is critical for successful intervention.  What do you think about the role of imaging today in cardiac interventional treatments?  There are many tools available for imaging so perhaps clinically or some of the developments that you see that are particularly useful or some of the new technology that perhaps clinical application versus perhaps just research.

　　Dr. DeMaria: Well I think in terms of imaging it is as you say， lots of alternative techniques that are available.  The key is to pick the right technique for the right question.  If the question is， if there is an obstruction in the coronary artery then you want to look at the coronary artery CTA， for instance if the question is whether there is myocardial viability then you probably tending towards a radionuclide technique.  If the question is about left ventricular function， then you will probably do an ECHO or MRI but the idea that it might be so called ‘one stop shopping’ just does not exist.  In fact， some test are better at giving you some kinds of answers than others and you have to know what answer you are really looking for in a test to pick the best technique.

　　<International Circulation>: We should not be dazzled by the technology because it is new and no new technology can fit every particular situation.

　　Dr. DeMaria: Actually in the United States， it is going the other way.  It is going low tech because of cost.  People are saying why should I do this very expensive technique to get a measurement of ventricular function when I can do something that is cheaper and simpler like an echocardiogram and get information that is clinically equal in value.

　　<International Circulation>: One final question， cell therapy， again this is an important new topic.  What about in acute MI when you are performing cell transplantation how do we go about choosing optimal timing for delivery and types of cells.  I know this is a question that can’t be answered in a very short answer.

　　Dr. DeMaria: Well actually it can.  The answer is that no one is quite sure.  There are pros and cons.  Shortly after acute MI you have the opportunity to have up-regulation of cytokines and integrins and so the chances that stem cells would hone to the infarct area are increased.  On the other hand you have edema and you have inflammation and the chances that those stem cells might be destroyed by those processes are very high.  So the short answer is no one is really quite sure at the moment what is the best timing for cell therapy or even in fact what is the best way to do it.  At the moment everybody is leaning towards directive towards myocardial injections but that is time consuming and of course a bit more complex than just doing a coronary injection.  Time will tell.  There is lots to be learned and more research is needed.

 （来源：《国际循环》CIT2014特刊）