As someone who also makes the effort to "stay on top" of recent literature, I can't help but point out how much of this "new information" is merely smoke (ie, non-practice changing).  One has to ask, is some of this data (or should I say data misinterpretation) throwing us off on the wrong path. I think as private practice cardiologists, it's our job to put clinical trial data and numbers into clinical context.  You mention dabigatran's 50% relative risk reduction in ICH, which sounds great.  Or does it? How about if I said the NNT=370?.  In RELY, hemorrhagic stroke w/pradaxa=0.12% vs 0.38% per year for coumadin.  If I told you Delta airlines has 30% less plane crashes than US Airways, but the overall risk of plane crash is <0.4%, would you cancel your flight and re-book? Perhaps some would.  But I bet most people would assume the risk and get home sooner. 

Giovanni Gulli

Italy

Great video.  You argue very well for looking at more of these "throwaway" journals.  I use twitter to keep up - follow sites like theheart.org.  You get the quick line on new trials then expand and read the whole article where you are interested.  It is efficient. 

I have only been in practice a few years though, and the further out I get the more I read journals as well.  JACC is my favorite.  There is so much to know and if you want to be an expert you need to cover the rare problems, like you point out in the video.  But I read on the iPad to save my shoulders. :-)  To each their own.