scholarly journals Atrial fibrillation guidelines across the Atlantic: a comparison of the current recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology/European Heart Rhythm Association/European Association of Cardiothoracic Surgeons, the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society

2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (20) ◽  
pp. 1471-1474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulus Kirchhof ◽  
Anne B. Curtis ◽  
Allan C. Skanes ◽  
Anne M. Gillis ◽  
L. Samuel Wann ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Jelena Pavlović ◽  
Philip Greenland ◽  
Oscar H. Franco ◽  
Maryam Kavousi ◽  
M. Kamran Ikram ◽  
...  

Background: Despite using identical evidence to support practice guidelines for lipid-lowering treatment in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), it is unclear to what extent the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, 2016 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), 2020 Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines differ in grading and assigning levels of evidence and classes of recommendations (LOE/class) at a population level. Methods: We included 7262 participants, aged 45 to 75 years, without history of CVD from the prospective population-based Rotterdam Study. Per guideline, proportions of the population recommended statin therapy by LOE/class, sensitivity and specificity for CVD events, and numbers needed to treat at 10 years were calculated. Results: Mean age was 61.1 (SD 6.9) years; 58.2% were women. American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, USPSTF, Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society strongly recommended statin initiation in respective 59.4%, 40.2%, 45.2%, 73.7%, and 42.1% of the eligible population based on high-quality evidence. Sensitivity for CVD events for treatment recommendations supported with strong LOE/class was 86.3% for American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (IA or IB), 69.4% for USPSTF (USPSTF-B), 74.5% for Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense (strong for), 93.3% for Canadian Cardiovascular Society (strong), and 66.6% for European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (IA). Specificity was highest for the USPSTF at 45.3% and lowest for European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society at 10.0%. Estimated numbers needed to treat at 10 years for those with the strongest LOE/class were ranging from 20 to 26 for moderate-intensity and 12 to 16 for high-intensity statins. Conclusions: Sensitivity, specificity, and numbers needed to treat at 10 years for assigned LOE/class varied greatly among 5 CVD prevention guidelines. The level of variability seems to be driven by differences in how the evidence is graded and translated into LOE/class underlying the treatment recommendations by different professional societies. Efforts towards harmonizing evidence grading systems for clinical guidelines in primary prevention of CVD may reduce ambiguity and reinforce updated evidence-based recommendations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Borchert ◽  
Katia González ◽  
Guillermo Lema

La valoración clínica sigue siendo uno de los pilares fundamentales en la evaluación del riesgo anestésico-quirúrgico. Los scores de riesgo para la evaluación cardiovascular y cirugía no cardíaca se basan tradicionalmente en la exclusión de condiciones cardíacas activas, la determinación del riesgo de cirugía, la capacidad funcional del paciente y la presencia de factores de riesgo cardíaco. En las últimas décadas, nuevas guías incorporan una asociación entre los biomarcadores cardiacos y los eventos cardiacos adversos. Para el manejo de pacientes coronarios en tratamiento antiagregante doble, derivados a cirugía no cardiaca, hay que considerar el riesgo de trombosis del stent, las consecuencias de retrasar el procedimiento quirúrgico y el aumento del riesgo de hemorragia. Hasta la fecha no existe evidencia acerca de cuál es el mejor manejo anestésico que disminuya las complicaciones cardiovasculares perioperatorias en este grupo de pacientes. Este artículo, hace referencia a las diferencias de la valoración preoperatoria para cirugía no cardiaca incorporados en las guías del American College of Cardiology, la American Heart Association, la European Society of Cardiology y la Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Algunas consideraciones acerca del manejo de pacientes coronarios, terapia antiplaquetaria dual y eventuales complicaciones. Se incluyen algunas estrategias farmacológicas, así como consideraciones específicas para el perioperatorio, con el fin de reducir morbilidad de origen cardiovascular.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document