The rapid technological developments of the past decade and the changes in echocardiographic practice brought about by these developments have resulted in the need for updated recommendations to the previously published guidelines for cardiac chamber quantification, which was the goal of the joint writing group assembled by the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. This document provides updated normal values for all four cardiac chambers, including three-dimensional echocardiography and myocardial deformation, when possible, on the basis of considerably larger numbers of normal subjects, compiled from multiple databases. In addition, this document attempts to eliminate several minor discrepancies that existed between previously published guidelines.

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5953422/file/5953443.pdf

Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging.

PREAMBLE......e4

APPENDIX 1......e121

APPENDIX 2......e122

APPENDIX 3......e124

REFERENCES......e124

It is important that the medical profession play a significant role in critically evaluating the use of diagnostic procedures and therapies as they are introduced in the detection, management,

/pdf/acc-aha-2006-guidelines-for-the-management-of-patients-with-27qfh9fc7i.pdf

ACC/AHA 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease

WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, SCM, FAHA Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH Stephanie E. Chiuve, ScD Mary Cushman, MD, MSc, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, FAHA Rajat Deo, MD, MTR Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, MPH James Floyd, MD, MS Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Cathleen Gillespie, MS Carmen R. Isasi, MD, PhD, FAHA Monik C. Jiménez, ScD, SM Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD Suzanne E. Judd, PhD Daniel Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Lynda Lisabeth, PhD, MPH, FAHA Simin Liu, MD, ScD, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Rachel H. Mackey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, FAHA Robert W. Neumar, MD, PhD, FAHA Latha Palaniappan, MD, MS, FAHA Dilip K. Pandey, MBBS, MS, PhD, FAHA Ravi R. Thiagarajan, MD, MPH Mathew J. Reeves, PhD Matthew Ritchey, PT, DPT, OCS, MPH Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, FAHA Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, FAHA Amytis Towfighi, MD Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH Melanie B. Turner, MPH Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA Jenifer H. Voeks, PhD Joshua Z. Willey, MD, MS John T. Wilkins, MD Jason HY. Wu, MSc, PhD, FAHA Heather M. Alger, PhD Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Paul Muntner, PhD, MHSc On behalf of the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2017 Update

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction--executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction).

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

Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA[#][1]

Lesley H. Curtis, PhD, FAHA

David DeMets, PhD[#][1]

Robert A

/pdf/2014-aha-acc-hrs-guideline-for-the-management-of-patients-1v8ficsqox.pdf

2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline 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 Heart Rhythm Society

Original articleAdult cardiacInvited Commentary

PURPOSE OF REVIEW Cost-effectiveness has become an increasingly important tool in assessing the value of healthcare. The principles of cost-effectiveness and the need to standardize the methodology are discussed. Documented variation could be used to adjust reimbursement. RECENT FINDINGS The US healthcare system continues to be under financial pressure. Although national health expenditures have slowed, growth rates continue to outpace gross domestic product. Spending in the coming years is expected to grow 7% annually. Treatment of cardiac disease, and in particular ischemic heart disease, is a significant portion of healthcare spending. A strategy to improve clinical and financial outcomes for revascularization procedures is essential. Recently, the SYNTAX trial and ASCERT have addressed cost-effectiveness as an outcome measure in revascularization for coronary artery disease. SUMMARY Cost-effectiveness is becoming an important part of healthcare provider performance and patient outcomes. Difficulties in obtaining cost, resource use, and quality of life data are not insurmountable as recently documented in randomized and observational trials. Reimbursement has already been linked to costs and resource use in current regulation. As the payment systems move toward disease management, cost-effectiveness will be the measure of choice. The prevalence of cardiac disease in the US population will mandate its use in adjusting payments to these providers.

Variation in cost-effectiveness in coronary revascularization: a new paradigm for evaluation?

Commentary: Failure to rescue: What does it really measure?

After two decades of debate, we are still asking the familiar question: “Which patient should have percutaneous catheter intervention and which should have coronary artery bypass grafting?” There does seem to be general agreement on the factors used to make the decision. Shortand long-term survival, stroke rate, the need for reinter vention, myocardial infarction, and patient preference all enter the equation. Fortunately, in recent years, several important studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) have shed light on these outcomes so that a clearer picture is beginning to emerge. The SYNTAX [1] and FREEDOM [2] trials have proved particularly valuable in the randomized group, while the large NY State studies [3] and the ASCERT study [4] have used a retro spective observational study design. It is particularly important to note that the results of both the randomized trials and the observational studies are now r emarkably consistent. The largest of these studies is the ASCERT study, which used information from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry to create a cohort of almost 190,000 patients that were, in turn, linked to Medicare data [4]. It should be emphasized that the ASCERT population consisted of Medicare-aged patients having twoand three-vessel coronary disease requiring nonemergency revascularization. To minimize the impact of selection bias, an exhaustive statistical approach was undertaken to include inverse probability weighting, ‘double robust’ propensity scoring, and propensity matching. Results were virtually the same for each approach. A detailed analysis was carried out to explore the possibility that an unmeasured confounder could account for the differences in PCI and CABG survival. This analysis demonstrated that an unmeasured confounder, if

/pdf/the-role-of-the-ascert-study-in-the-current-treatment-of-34lfwc2ar9.pdf

Fred H. Edwards

Papers

Original articleAdult cardiacInvited Commentary

Variation in cost-effectiveness in coronary revascularization: a new paradigm for evaluation?

Commentary: Failure to rescue: What does it really measure?

The role of the ASCERT study in the current treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease

Risk Models for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.