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: 30.39). 05/2014; 311(20):2092-100. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.4949
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Little is known regarding the durability of clinical practice guideline recommendations over time.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Clinical guidelines should be updated to maintain their validity. Our aim was to estimate the length of time before recommendations become outdated. Methods: We used a retrospective cohort design and included recommendations from clinical guidelines developed in the Spanish National Health System clinical guideline program since 2008. We performed a descriptive analysis of references, recommendations and resources used, and a survival analysis of recommendations using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: We included 113 recommendations from 4 clinical guidelines with a median of 4 years since the most recent search (range 3.9-4.4 yr). We retrieved 39 136 references (range 3343-14 787) using an exhaustive literature search, 668 of which were related to the recommendations in our sample. We identified 69 (10.3%) key references, corresponding to 25 (22.1%) recommendations that required updating. Ninety-two percent (95% confidence interval 86.9-97.0) of the recommendations were valid 1 year after their development. This probability decreased at 2 (85.7%), 3 (81.3%) and 4 years (77.8%). Interpretation: Recommendations quickly become outdated, with 1 out of 5 recommendations being out of date after 3 years. Waiting more than 3 years to review a guideline is potentially too long.
    Canadian Medical Association Journal 09/2014; 186(16). DOI:10.1503/cmaj.140547 · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • BMJ quality & safety 08/2014; 23(11). DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003114 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [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; 14:73. DOI:10.1186/1471-2253-14-73 · 1.33 Impact Factor