scholarly journals COMMENTS ON GUIDELINES OF AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION AND EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF CARDIOLOGY (2006) FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-99
Author(s):  
S. R. Gilyarevskiy

scholarly journals ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation31This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Board of Trustees in August 2001, the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee in August 2001, and the European Society of Cardiology Board and Committee for Practice Guidelines and Policy Conferences in August 2001.32When citing this document, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology would appreciate the following citation format: Fuster V, Rydén LE, Asinger RW, Cannom DS, Crijns HJ, Frye RL, Halperin JL, Kay GN, Klein WW, Lévy S, McNamara RL, Prystowsky EN, Wann LS, Wyse DG. ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines and Policy Conferences (Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:XX-XX.33This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the American College of Cardiology (www.acc.org), the American Heart Association (www.americanheart.org), the European Society of Cardiology (www.escardio.org), and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (www.naspe.org). Single reprints of this document (the complete Guidelines) to be published in the mid-October issue of the European Heart Journal are available by calling +44.207.424.4200 or +44.207.424.4389, faxing +44.207.424.4433, or writing Harcourt Publishers Ltd, European Heart Journal, ESC Guidelines – Reprints, 32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BY, United Kingdom. Single reprints of the shorter version (Executive Summary and Summary of Recommendations) published in the October issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and the October issue of Circulation, are available for $5.00 each by calling 800-253-4636 (US only) or by writing the Resource Center, American College of Cardiology, 9111 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. To purchase bulk reprints specify version and reprint number (Executive Summary 71-0208; full text 71-0209) up to 999 copies, call 800-611-6083 (US only) or fax 413-665-2671; 1000 or more copies, call 214-706-1466, fax 214-691-6342; or E-mail: [email protected].

2001 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 1266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentin Fuster ◽  
Lars E. Rydén ◽  
Richard W. Asinger ◽  
David S. Cannom ◽  
Harry J. Crijns ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (02) ◽  
pp. 138-142
Author(s):  
Janine Pöss ◽  
Holger Thiele

ZusammenfassungBei 5–6% aller Patienten mit akutem Myokardinfarkt, die einer Koronarangiografie unterzogen werden, liegt ein Myokardinfarkt mit nicht obstruktiven Koronarien (myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries; MINOCA) vor. Eine angemessene Diagnostik ist erforderlich, um die zugrunde liegende Ursache zu identifizieren und eine spezifische Therapie einzuleiten. Im Jahr 2019 hat die American Heart Association (AHA) in einem Scientific Statement eine überarbeitete Definition für den Begriff MINOCA vorgestellt und diese in ein klinisch sinnvolles Gerüst mit diagnostischen und therapeutischen Algorithmen zum Management von Patienten mit MINOCA eingebettet . Die im August 2020 aktualisierte Leitlinie der European Society of Cardiology (ESC) zum akuten Koronarsyndrom ohne persistierende ST-Strecken-Hebungen (NSTE-ACS) widmet dem Thema MINOCA ein eigenes, neues Kapitel . Folgender Beitrag fasst die wesentlichen Aspekte zusammen und gibt einen Überblick über dieses Krankheitsbild.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document