Durability of Class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 35.29). 05/2014; 311(20):2092-100. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.4949
Little is known regarding the durability of clinical practice guideline recommendations over time.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines recently issued the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults. This new guideline endorses a paradigm shift in strategies for reducing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events by lowering blood cholesterol. Whereas previous guidelines focused on therapy to decrease low-density lipoprotein and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol to specific target levels, the new guideline instead proposes implementation of cholesterol-lowering treatment using evidenced-based intensity of statin therapy without such targets. The guideline also provides a new risk estimator for primary prevention decisions, including stroke outcomes and data on African Americans, which will significantly increase the number of patients recommended for outcome-related benefits of cholesterol-lowering therapy. The first section of this paper reviews the process by which the task force developed the new evidence-based guideline, the major findings and recommendations, and their implications. The second section primarily focuses on the question of how much low-density lipoprotein cholesterol should be lowered and on additional considerations in risk assessment.Journal of the American College of Cardiology 08/2014; 64(6):601–612. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.06.1159 · 16.50 Impact Factor
- BMJ quality & safety 08/2014; 23(11). DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003114 · 3.99 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background With the advent of percutaneous coronary intervention, specifically the bare metal stent and subsequently, the drug-eluting stent, the scope of interventional cardiology has greatly increased. Aspirin, in combination with a thienopyridine is the present-day cornerstone of oral antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery stent placement. Continuing this chronic antiplatelet therapy, to mitigate a perioperative major adverse cardiac event, can be challenging and remains controversial in patients with a coronary artery stent undergoing non-cardiac surgery. We describe here the rationale for and successful use of an alternate approach to formulating local institutional management protocols for patients with a coronary artery stent, undergoing an elective surgical procedure. Discussion A recent systematic review identified 11 clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy in patients with a coronary stent who need non-cardiac surgery. However, there is significant variance and inadequacy with these current applicable professional society guidelines. Moreover, persistently variable success has been experienced in translating even well-grounded national clinical guidelines into local practice, including in the perioperative setting. Under the auspices of a broadly multidisciplinary institutional task force and applying the Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making model, we created two evidence-informed and local expert opinion-supported standardized clinical assessment and management plans for the preoperative management of antiplatelet therapy in patients with a coronary artery stent. Summary Patient care can be optimized via evidence-based, yet locally developed and reiterative standardized clinical assessment and management plans for patients with coronary artery stents undergoing surgical procedures. Such standardized clinical assessment and management plans can result in greater consistency in care, providing a positive feedback loop in which the care plan itself can be continuously reevaluated, improved, and brought up to date with the most recent available data and knowledge.BMC Anesthesiology 08/2014; 14(1):73. DOI:10.1186/1471-2253-14-73 · 1.38 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.