Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction : ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable ISSN: 1524-4539 Copyright © 2007 American Heart Association. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0009-7322. Online 72514 Circulation is published by the American Heart Association. 7272 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, TX doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.18194

https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/vd66w2108

ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction)...

Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents summarize and evaluate all currently available evidence on a particular issue with the aim to assist physicians in selecting the best management strategies for a typical patient, suffering from a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no substitutes for textbooks. The legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed previously.

A great number of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) as well as by other societies and organizations. Because of the impact on clinical practice, quality criteria for development of guidelines have been established in order to make all decisions transparent to the user. The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents can be found on the ESC website (http://www.escardio.org/knowledge/guidelines/rules).

In brief, experts in the field are selected and undertake a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management and/or prevention of a given condition. A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is performed including assessment of the risk–benefit ratio. Estimates of expected health outcomes for larger societies are included, where data exist. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendation of particular treatment options are weighed and graded according to pre-defined scales, as outlined in Tables 1 and 2 .

View this table:

 Table 1 
Classes of recommendations



View this table:

 Table 2 
Levels of evidence



The experts of the writing panels have provided disclosure statements of all relationships they may have which might be perceived as real or potential sources of conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. Any changes in conflict of interest that arise during the writing period must be notified to the …

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-non-st-segment-4i7khpy8cj.pdf

Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes

http://hwmaint.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/110/9/e82.pdf

ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is recommended, if thrombolysis failed within 45-60 min after starting the administration. After successful thrombolysis, the use of routine coronary angiography within 24 h and PCI, if applicable, is recommended even in asymptomatic patients without demonstrable ischaemia to improve patients' outcome. If a PCI centre is not available within 24 h, patients who have received successful thrombolysis with evidence of spontaneous or inducible ischaemia before discharge should be referred to coronary angiography and revascularized accordingly--independent of 'maximal' medical therapy.

/pdf/guidelines-for-percutaneous-coronary-interventions-the-task-24mhc15983.pdf

Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology.

BACKGROUND: The combined use of anticoagulants, antiplatelet agents, and invasive coronary procedures reduces ischemic coronary events but also increases bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes. We therefore assessed whether fondaparinux would preserve the anti-ischemic benefits of enoxaparin while reducing bleeding. METHODS: We randomly assigned 20,078 patients with acute coronary syndromes to receive either fondaparinux (2.5 mg daily) or enoxaparin (1 mg per kilogram of body weight twice daily) for a mean of six days and evaluated death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at nine days (the primary outcome); major bleeding; and their combination. Patients were followed for up to six months. RESULTS: The number of patients with primary-outcome events was similar in the two groups (579 with fondaparinux [5.8 percent] vs. 573 with enoxaparin [5.7 percent]; hazard ratio in the fondaparinux group, 1.01; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.13), satisfying the noninferiority criteria. The number of events meeting this combined outcome showed a nonsignificant trend toward a lower value in the fondaparinux group at 30 days (805 vs. 864, P=0.13) and at the end of the study (1222 vs. 1308, P=0.06). The rate of major bleeding at nine days was markedly lower with fondaparinux than with enoxaparin (217 events [2.2 percent] vs. 412 events [4.1 percent]; hazard ratio, 0.52; P<0.001). The composite of the primary outcome and major bleeding at nine days favored fondaparinux (737 events [7.3 percent] vs. 905 events [9.0 percent]; hazard ratio, 0.81; P<0.001). Fondaparinux was associated with a significantly reduced number of deaths at 30 days (295 vs. 352, P=0.02) and at 180 days (574 vs. 638, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Fondaparinux is similar to enoxaparin in reducing the risk of ischemic events at nine days, but it substantially reduces major bleeding and improves long term mortality and morbidity. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00139815.).

/pdf/comparison-of-fondaparinux-and-enoxaparin-in-acute-coronary-1c029t7fze.pdf

R Bilke

Papers

Direct thrombin inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: principal results of a meta-analysis based on individual patients'data

Protocol Design Variables Highly Correlated with, and Predictive of, Clinical Trial Performance