Author
Neil H. Brooks
Bio: Neil H. Brooks is an academic researcher from American Heart Association. The author has contributed to research in topics: Emergency department & Myocardial infarction. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 5 publications receiving 4411 citations.
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: These guidelines are intended for physicians, nurses, and allied healthcare personnel who care for patients with suspected or established acute myocardial infarction and promote rapid identification and treatment of patients with acute MI.
1,630 citations
TL;DR: The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association request that the following format be used when citing this document: Ryan TJ, Antman EM, Brooks NH, Califf RM, Hillis LD, Hiratzka LF, Rapaport E, Riegel B, Russell RO, Smith EE III, Weaver WD.
1,325 citations
TL;DR: The guidelines have been updated to include the most significant advances that have occurred in the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during that time frame and were developed to keep the guidelines current without republishing the entire document.
Abstract: The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction have been reviewed over the past 2.5 years since their initial publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (1996;28:1328–1428) to ensure their continued relevancy. The guidelines have been updated to include the most significant advances that have occurred in the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during that time frame. This update was developed to keep the guidelines current without republishing the entire document. This effort represents a new procedure of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. These guidelines will be reviewed and updated as necessary until it is deemed appropriate to revise and republish the entire document.
The guidelines, incorporating the update, are available on the Web sites of both the American College of Cardiology (www.acc.org) and the American Heart Association (www.americanheart.org). In the Web site version, deleted text is indicated by strikeout, and new/revised text is presented as double-underlined type. Reprints of the original document with the revised sections appended are available from both organizations (see information below).
The following is a listing of the recommendations made by the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines in the ACC/AHA Task Force Report “ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.” More detailed information regarding the evidence and the rationale for these recommendations can be found in the full text of the guidelines themselves, which appears in the November 1996 and September 1999 (update) issues of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
As in previous guidelines, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have used the following classification system in which indications for a diagnostic procedure, a particular therapy, or intervention are designated as:
Class I: Conditions for …
749 citations
TL;DR: These guidelines are intended for physicians, nurses, and allied healthcare personnel who care for patients with suspected or established acute myocardial infarction and promote rapid identification and treatment of patients with acute MI.
Abstract: Executive Summary andListing of Recommendations
These guidelines are intended for physicians, nurses, and allied healthcare personnel who care for patients with suspected or established acute myocardial infarction (MI)
These guidelines have been officially endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the American College of Emergency Physicians, and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses
This executive summary and listing of recommendations appears in the November 1, 1996, issue of Circulation The guidelines in their entirety, including the ACC/AHA Class I, II, and III recommendations, are published in the November 1996 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Beginning with these guidelines, the full text of ACC/AHA guidelines will be published in one journal and the executive summary and listing of recommendations in the other Reprints of both the full text and the executive summary with its listing of recommendations are available from both organizations
Each year 900 000 people in the United States experience acute MI Of these, roughly 225 000 die, including 125 000 who die “in the field” before obtaining medical care Most of these deaths are arrhythmic in etiology Because early reperfusion treatment of patients with acute MI improves left ventricular (LV) systolic function and survival, every effort must be made to minimize prehospital delay Indeed, efforts are ongoing to promote rapid identification and treatment of patients with acute MI, including (1) patient education about the symptoms of acute MI and appropriate actions to take and (2) prompt initial care of the patient by the community emergency medical system In treating the patient with chest pain, emergency medical system personnel must act with a sense of urgency
When the patient with suspected acute MI reaches the emergency department (ED), evaluation and initial management should take place promptly, because the benefit of reperfusion therapy is greatest if therapy …
370 citations
TL;DR: The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have developed a multi-faceted strategy to facilitate the process of improving clinical care.
Abstract: Preamble......237
Medicine is experiencing an unprecedented focus on quantifying and improving health care quality. The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have developed a multi-faceted strategy to facilitate the process of improving clinical care. The
368 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: Although considerable improvement has occurred in the process of care for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), room for improvement exists as discussed by the authors, and the purpose of the present guideline is to focus on the numerous advances in the diagnosis and management of patients
Abstract: Although considerable improvement has occurred in the process of care for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), room for improvement exists.[1–3][1][][2][][3] The purpose of the present guideline is to focus on the numerous advances in the diagnosis and management of patients
8,352 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Elliott M. Antman,MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair; Daniel T. Anbe, MD, F ACC,FAHA; Paul Wayne Armstrong, MD; Eric R. Bates; Lee A. Green; Mary Hand; Judith S. Kushner; and Sidney C. Sloan.
7,134 citations
TL;DR: Treatment with oral conjugated equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate did not reduce the overall rate of CHD events in postmenopausal women with established coronary disease and the treatment did increase the rate of thromboembolic events and gallbladder disease.
Abstract: Context.—Observational studies have found lower rates of coronary heart disease
(CHD) in postmenopausal women who take estrogen than in women who do not,
but this potential benefit has not been confirmed in clinical trials.Objective.—To determine if estrogen plus progestin therapy alters the risk for
CHD events in postmenopausal women with established coronary disease.Design.—Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled secondary prevention trial.Setting.—Outpatient and community settings at 20 US clinical centers.Participants.—A total of 2763 women with coronary disease, younger than 80 years,
and postmenopausal with an intact uterus. Mean age was 66.7 years.Intervention.—Either 0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone
acetate in 1 tablet daily (n=1380) or a placebo of identical appearance (n=1383).
Follow-up averaged 4.1 years; 82% of those assigned to hormone treatment were
taking it at the end of 1 year, and 75% at the end of 3 years.Main Outcome Measures.—The primary outcome was the occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction
(MI) or CHD death. Secondary cardiovascular outcomes included coronary revascularization,
unstable angina, congestive heart failure, resuscitated cardiac arrest, stroke
or transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease. All-cause mortality
was also considered.Results.—Overall, there were no significant differences between groups in the
primary outcome or in any of the secondary cardiovascular outcomes: 172 women
in the hormone group and 176 women in the placebo group had MI or CHD death
(relative hazard [RH], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.22). The
lack of an overall effect occurred despite a net 11% lower low-density lipoprotein
cholesterol level and 10% higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level
in the hormone group compared with the placebo group (each P<.001). Within the overall null effect, there was a statistically
significant time trend, with more CHD events in the hormone group than in
the placebo group in year 1 and fewer in years 4 and 5. More women in the
hormone group than in the placebo group experienced venous thromboembolic
events (34 vs 12; RH, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.50-5.58) and gallbladder disease (84
vs 62; RH, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92). There were no significant differences
in several other end points for which power was limited, including fracture,
cancer, and total mortality (131 vs 123 deaths; RH, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.84-1.38).Conclusions.—During an average follow-up of 4.1 years, treatment with oral conjugated
equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate did not reduce the overall
rate of CHD events in postmenopausal women with established coronary disease.
The treatment did increase the rate of thromboembolic events and gallbladder
disease. Based on the finding of no overall cardiovascular benefit and a pattern
of early increase in risk of CHD events, we do not recommend starting this
treatment for the purpose of secondary prevention of CHD. However, given the
favorable pattern of CHD events after several years of therapy, it could be
appropriate for women already receiving this treatment to continue.
5,991 citations
TL;DR: The present guidelines supersede the 1994 guidelines and summarize both the evidence and expert opinion and provide final recommendations for both patient evaluation and therapy.
Abstract: The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to make recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Unstable angina (UA) and the closely related condition non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are very common manifestations of this disease. These life-threatening disorders are a major cause of emergency medical care and hospitalizations in the United States. In 1996, the National Center for Health Statistics reported 1 433 000 hospitalizations for UA or NSTEMI. In recognition of the importance of the management of this common entity and of the rapid advances in the management of this condition, the need to revise guidelines published by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in 1994 was evident. This Task Force therefore formed the current committee to develop guidelines for the management of UA and NSTEMI. The present guidelines supersede the 1994 guidelines.
The customary ACC/AHA classifications I, II, and III summarize both the evidence and expert opinion and provide final recommendations for both patient evaluation and therapy:
Class I: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure or treatment is useful and effective .
Class II: Conditions for which there is conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of a procedure or treatment.
Class IIa: Weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of usefulness/efficacy.
Class IIb: Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion.
Class III: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that the procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful.
The weight of the evidence was ranked highest (A) if the data …
5,020 citations
Emory University1, University of California, San Francisco2, University of California, San Diego3, Baylor College of Medicine4, University of Minnesota5, Virginia Commonwealth University6, Rush University Medical Center7, Texas Tech University8, Duke University9, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston10, National Institutes of Health11
TL;DR: In this article, Anderson et al. discuss the FAHA chair election process and discuss the state of the art in the field of cancer research. But they do not discuss the role of women in this process.
3,218 citations