Simulation in Cardiovascular Medicine Education: Innovation, Safety, and Competency-Based Training
The incorporation of simulators into cardiovascular medicine education represents one of the most significant transformations in contemporary medical training. In a scenario marked by high clinical complexity, rapid technological evolution, and time-dependent decision-making, simulation emerges as a pedagogical strategy capable of integrating theoretical knowledge, technical skills, and non-technical competencies in a structured and safe manner., However, despite its growing adoption, simulation-based education should be interpreted within the context of its current evidence base, which still presents important limitations, particularly regarding its direct impact on patient-centered outcomes.
Contemporary cardiology, characterized by rapid advances in pharmacological therapies, complex interventional procedures, and sophisticated cardiac imaging, requires professionals not only to acquire new skills but also to maintain continuous proficiency. In this context of rapid evolution and increasing demands for safety and effectiveness, simulation positions itself as an important ally. Nevertheless, its role should be understood as complementary rather than substitutive to real clinical exposure. These needs are reinforced by the newly established National Curricular Guidelines for the Undergraduate Medical Course (DCNs 2025), which explicitly advocate the provision of “protected, controlled, and technically adequate learning environments, such as skills laboratories and clinical simulation,” aiming at patient safety and the analysis of error as a pedagogical tool, while also emphasizing that clinical training in real healthcare environments must remain predominant throughout medical education. This vision aligns with the already consolidated experience of programs that train simulation multipliers, which are essential for the continuing education of health professionals within the SUS and for the training of students and residents.
[…]
Comments are moderated by the editorial team before publication. Discussions should be evidence-based and use scientific language. Conflicts of interest should be declared.