Speaker Evaluation

Question Title

* 1. Please provide FIRST and LAST Name:

Question Title

* 2. Please provide your Email Address:

Question Title

* 3. Medical Specialty* (Please select one. If other, please specify):

Question Title

* 4. Type of Practice:

Question Title

* 5. Practice Location:

SESSION I: Co-Chairs: Iqwal Mangat, MD & Julia Rackal, MD

Question Title

* 6. Speaker: Paul Angaran, MD
Topic: Standard of care in AF: Diagnosis, management, and cure

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 7. Speaker: Beth Abramson, MD
Topic: Guidelines for lipid lowering: Can we agree to disagree?

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 8. Speaker: Shaun Goodman, MD
Topic: Interesting choices beyond statin: Ezetimibe, PCSK9i, and icosapent ethyl

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 9. Speaker: Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD
Topic: Colchicine: An old drug becomes a new weapon in CAD

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 10. Speaker: Kim Connelly, MD
Topic: Diabetes management: Important cardiometabolic choices

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 11. Speaker: Faculty
Topic: Panel Discussion with audience, moderated session, Q&A augmented by use of on-line chat, Q&A or raising of hand

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate
SESSION II: Co-Chairs: Michael Kutryk, MD & Sharon Mintz, MD

Question Title

* 12. Speaker: Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD
Topic: Aspirin in primary and secondary prevention

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 13. Speaker: Sami Alnasser, MD
Topic: Secondary prevention with antithrombotic therapy: With or without Aspirin?

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 14. Speaker: Akshay Bagai, MD
Topic: Best approach in patients with ISCHEMIA

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 15. Speaker: John Graham, MD
Topic: CAD + AF: Difficult decisions when two diseases co-exist

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 16. Speaker: Faculty
Topic: Panel Discussion with audience, moderated session, Q&A augmented by use of on-line chat, Q&A or raising of hand

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate
SESSION III: Co-Chairs: Geraldine Ong, MD & Tao Wang, MD

Question Title

* 17. Speaker: Abdul Al-Hesayen, MD
Topic: HFrEF: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” vs “Necessity is the mother of invention”

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 18. Speaker: Gordon Moe, MD
Topic: Evidence-based HF management: I need two hands to count

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 19. Speaker: Andrew Yan, MD
Topic: New clinical trials that impact on your practice

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 20. Speaker: Faculty
Topic: Panel Discussion with audience, moderated session, Q&A augmented by use of on-line chat, Q&A or raising of hand

  1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Speaker / Presentation was Balanced & Unbiased
Was consistent with stated objectives
Information was presented clearly
Information was relevant to practice
Discussion time was adequate

Question Title

* 21. Comments:

T