Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents aim to present management recommendations based on all of the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient suffering from a specific condition, taking into account the impact on outcome and also the risk–benefit ratio of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. Numerous studies have demonstrated that patient outcomes improve when guideline recommendations, based on the rigorous assessment of evidence-based research, are applied in clinical practice.

A great number of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and also by other organizations or related societies. The profusion of documents can put at stake the authority and credibility of guidelines, particularly if discrepancies appear between different documents on the same issue, as this can lead to confusion in the minds of physicians. In order to avoid these pitfalls, the ESC and other organizations have issued recommendations for formulating and issuing Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents. The ESC recommendations for guidelines production can be found on the ESC website.1 It is beyond the scope of this preamble to recall all but the basic rules.

In brief, the ESC appoints experts in the field to carry out a comprehensive review of the literature, with a view to making a critical evaluation of the use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and assessing the risk–benefit ratio of the therapies recommended for management and/or prevention of a given condition. Estimates of expected health outcomes are included, where data exist. The strength of evidence for or against particular procedures or treatments is weighed according to predefined scales for grading recommendations and levels of evidence, as outlined in what follows.

The Task Force members of the writing panels, …

Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease The Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology

Preamble and Transition to ACC/AHA Guidelines to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk S50

The goals of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) are to prevent cardiovascular diseases (CVD); improve the management of people who have these diseases through professional education and research; and develop guidelines, standards, and policies that promote optimal patient care and cardiovascular health. Toward these objectives, the ACC and AHA have collaborated with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and stakeholder and professional organizations to develop …

/pdf/2013-acc-aha-guideline-on-the-assessment-of-cardiovascular-1t8hg65cmz.pdf

2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk

2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non–ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: Document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair 

Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect 

Nancy M. Albert, PhD, RN, FAHA

Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA

Ralph G. Brindis, MD, MPH, MACC

Lesley H. Curtis, PhD, FAHA

David DeMets, PhD[¶¶][1]

Lee A. Fleisher, MD, FACC, FAHA

Samuel

/pdf/2014-acc-aha-guideline-on-perioperative-cardiovascular-3firuin78y.pdf

2014 ACC/AHA guideline on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: A report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines

Background Cardiac complications are important causes of morbidity after noncardiac surgery. The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to develop and validate an index for risk of cardiac complications. Methods and results We studied 4315 patients aged > or = 50 years undergoing elective major noncardiac procedures in a tertiary-care teaching hospital. The main outcome measures were major cardiac complications. Major cardiac complications occurred in 56 (2%) of 2893 patients assigned to the derivation cohort. Six independent predictors of complications were identified and included in a Revised Cardiac Risk Index: high-risk type of surgery, history of ischemic heart disease, history of congestive heart failure, history of cerebrovascular disease, preoperative treatment with insulin, and preoperative serum creatinine >2.0 mg/dL. Rates of major cardiac complication with 0, 1, 2, or > or = 3 of these factors were 0.5%, 1.3%, 4%, and 9%, respectively, in the derivation cohort and 0.4%, 0.9%, 7%, and 11%, respectively, among 1422 patients in the validation cohort. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis in the validation cohort indicated that the diagnostic performance of the Revised Cardiac Risk Index was superior to other published risk-prediction indexes. Conclusions In stable patients undergoing nonurgent major noncardiac surgery, this index can identify patients at higher risk for complications. This index may be useful for identification of candidates for further risk stratification with noninvasive technologies or other management strategies, as well as low-risk patients in whom additional evaluation is unlikely to be helpful.

/pdf/derivation-and-prospective-validation-of-a-simple-index-for-1o4kxch7qa.pdf

E. F. Cook

Papers

Derivation and Prospective Validation of a Simple Index for Prediction of Cardiac Risk of Major Noncardiac Surgery