I love this podcast, but I miss the breadth and depth of interviews that I used to hear on the original ACCEL/Audio Digest. I felt I could keep up with new developments and thinking by listening to the 3 hours of interviews each month, but now ACCEL is much more limited, thus “Lite.”

Compared to previous version of ACCEL this is very superficial and shallow . I miss the old ACCEL with detailed interviews and pdfs . CME was nice too . I would not mind paying for the ACCEL if it is detailed and has CME included. The way it was in the past

The audio of the author is very distorted unfortunately.

Timothy Wong's August 2024 presentation on HCM. Dr Wong refers to LVH as a symptom. LVH is a sign or a finding, but it is not a symptom.

Occasionally, the interviewers and their subjects provide important new information or well thought out summaries of new guidelines. More often than not however this feels like a talk show, with some nice discussion and nothing new that I will implement in my practice. Some of the interviewers in particular are extremely flowery and complementary, bordering on obsequious and nauseating.

The prior versions when hosted by the late Fred Bovie and Spencer King were more in depth with printed summary and references. Thie current version is lacking in depth of analysis and is fittingly called ACCEL Lite.

Lot of negative reviews for how short and superficial the episodes are. I disagree - I think this short form is really helpful, and while nobody would argue it doesn’t allow for depth, it’s a great springboard to go deeper if you want (you can always read the journal article or ACC’s summary online if you want more.) Sometimes I just have 10 minutes, and this fits the bill perfectly. Keep it up!!

For decades, ACCEL has served as a wonderful educational program. This is no longer the case. Reversion to the original format would constitute a wonderful service to both active members of the ACC and trainees.

I always enjoyed the prior ACCEL recordings that were very informative. The ACCEL lite interviews are interesting but lack the depth of the previous longer interview format.

I would call this UltraLite. Even 30 - 45 minutes per episode of interviews similar to what ACCEL used to provide would be much more helpful to the busy clinician. We need to hear a 10 - 12 min conversation with those individuals who are heading or participating on the committees writing the new or updated clinical practice guidelines or involved it cutting-edge, clinically-relevant research interviewed by another individual who can ask important and revealing questions. That is all we need. Eliminate the fluff. Time is important. These episodes need to be succinct and enlightening with the goal to keep the busy clinician current and able to integrate this kind of info into practice.

Great program with most updated information. Really helpful for practicing cardiologists!