The aim of this updated guideline is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of future stroke among survivors of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. The guideline is addressed to all clinicians who manage secondary prevention for these patients. Evidence-based recommendations are provided for control of risk factors, intervention for vascular obstruction, antithrombotic therapy for cardioembolism, and antiplatelet therapy for noncardioembolic stroke. Recommendations are also provided for the prevention of recurrent stroke in a variety of specific circumstances, including aortic arch atherosclerosis, arterial dissection, patent foramen ovale, hyperhomocysteinemia, hypercoagulable states, antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, sickle cell disease, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and pregnancy. Special sections address use of antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy after an intracranial hemorrhage and implementation of guidelines.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-prevention-of-stroke-in-patients-with-4s66xf1dte.pdf

Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

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

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

Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair 2009–2011 [§§][1]

Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FACC, FAHA, Past Chair 2006–2008 [§§][1]

Cynthia D. Adams, MSN, APRN-BC, FAHA[§§][1]

Nancy M

2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The aim of this updated statement is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of stroke among individuals who have not previously experienced a stroke or transient ischemic attack. Evidence-based recommendations are included for the control of risk factors, interventional approaches to atherosclerotic disease of the cervicocephalic circulation, and antithrombotic treatments for preventing thrombotic and thromboembolic stroke. Further recommendations are provided for genetic and pharmacogenetic testing and for the prevention of stroke in a variety of other specific circumstances, including sickle cell disease and patent foramen ovale.

Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

Since the 2006 update of the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) guidelines on secondary prevention,1 important evidence from clinical trials has emerged that further supports and broadens the merits of intensive risk-reduction therapies for patients with established coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease, including peripheral artery disease, atherosclerotic aortic disease, and carotid artery disease. In reviewing this evidence and its clinical impact, the writing group believed it would be more appropriate to expand the title of this guideline to “Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients With Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease.” Indeed, the growing body of evidence confirms that in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, comprehensive risk factor management reduces risk as assessed by a variety of outcomes, including improved survival, reduced recurrent events, the need for revascularization procedures, and improved quality of life. It is important not only that the healthcare provider implement these recommendations in appropriate patients but also that healthcare systems support this implementation to maximize the benefit to the patient.

Compelling evidence-based results from recent clinical trials and revised practice guidelines provide the impetus for this update of the 2006 recommendations with evidence-based results2–165 (Table 1). Classification of recommendations and level of evidence are expressed in ACCF/AHA format, as detailed in Table 2. Recommendations made herein are largely based on major practice guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and updated ACCF/AHA practice guidelines, as well as on results from recent clinical trials. Thus, the development of the present guideline involved a process of partial adaptation of other guideline statements and reports and supplemental literature searches. The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. Writing group members performed these relevant supplemental literature searches with key search phrases including but not limited …

https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/nk322g582

AHA/ACCF Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients With Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease: 2011 Update A Guideline From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation

A 5-tier pyramid best describes the impact of different types of public health interventions and provides a framework to improve health. At the base of this pyramid, indicating interventions with the greatest potential impact, are efforts to address socioeconomic determinants of health. In ascending order are interventions that change the context to make individuals' default decisions healthy, clinical interventions that require limited contact but confer long-term protection, ongoing direct clinical care, and health education and counseling.Interventions focusing on lower levels of the pyramid tend to be more effective because they reach broader segments of society and require less individual effort. Implementing interventions at each of the levels can achieve the maximum possible sustained public health benefit.

A Framework for Public Health Action: The Health Impact Pyramid

s obtained Abstracts reviewed for inclusion/exclusion criteria by literature reviewerss reviewed for inclusion/exclusion criteria by literature reviewers Update topics chosen by Panel Full copy of each accepted article read and independently coded by at least 3 literature reviewers Evidence tables created by literature reviewers Initial meta-analyses conducted Panel reviewed relevant literature and meta-analytic results Panel formed tentative conclusions, identified need for further analyses Additional literature reviews and meta-analyses conducted Panel reviewed updated evidence and made recommendations based on evidence Manuscript drafted and reviewed by Panel Additional manuscript drafts reviewed by Panel Manuscript draft reviewed by peer reviewers and the public Manuscript revised and reviewed by Panel Manuscript submitted to PHS Overview and Methods 21 comparative effectiveness. Most of these randomized trials, however, were conducted with individuals who proactively sought treatment and who volunteered to fulfill various research requirements. It is possible that these individuals were more highly motivated to quit smoking than the typical smoker encountered in a clinical practice setting. Thus, the percentage abstinent estimates supplied with the meta-analyses may overestimate the actual level of abstinence produced by some of the treatments in real-world settings. Analyses conducted for the previous Guideline editions, though, suggest that the treatment effect sizes (odds ratios or ORs) are relatively stable across individuals seeking treatment (“treatment seekers”) and those recruited via inclusive recruitment strategies (“all-comers”). Randomized controlled trials were exclusively used in meta-analyses. However, the Panel recognized that variations in study inclusion criteria sometimes were warranted. For instance, research on tobacco interventions in adolescents frequently assigns interventions on the basis of larger units, such as schools. These units, rather than individuals, were allowed to serve as units of analysis when analyzing interventions for adolescents. In such cases, studies were combined for inclusion in meta-analyses if the study satisfied other review criteria. A similar strategy was followed in the review of health systems research. In certain areas, research other than randomized clinical trials was evaluated and considered to inform Panel opinion and judgment, though not submitted to meta-analysis. This occurred with topics such as tobacco dependence treatment in specific populations, tailoring interventions, and cost-effectiveness of tobacco dependence treatment. Literature Review and Inclusion Criteria Approximately 8,700 articles were screened to identify evaluable literature. This figure includes approximately 2,700 articles added to the literature since publication of the 2000 Guideline. These articles were obtained through searches of 11 electronic databases and reviews of published abstracts and bibliographies. An article was deemed appropriate for meta-analysis if it met the criteria for inclusion established a priori by the Panel. These criteria were that the article: (a) reported the results of a randomized, placebo/comparison controlled trial of a tobacco use treatment intervention randomized on the patient level (except as noted above); (b) provided followup results at least 5 months after the quit date (except in the case of studies evaluating tobacco dependence treatments Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update 22 for pregnant smokers); (c) was published in a peer-reviewed journal; (d) was published between January 1975 and June 2007; (e) was published in English; and (f) was one of the 11 topics chosen to be included in the 2008 update (see Table 1.1). It is important to note that the article-screening criteria were updated for the 2008 Guideline update. Additionally, articles were screened for relevance to safety, economic, or health systems issues. As a result of the original and update literature reviews, more than 300 articles were identified for possible inclusion in a meta-analysis, and more than 600 additional articles were examined in detail by the Panel. These latter articles were used in the formulation of Panel recommendations that were not supported by meta-analyses. The literature search for the update project was validated by comparing the results against a search conducted by the CDC and through review by the expert Panel. When individual authors published multiple articles meeting the metaanalytic inclusion criteria, the articles were screened to determine whether they contained unique data. When two articles reported data from the same group of subjects, both articles were reviewed to ensure that complete data were obtained. The data were treated as arising from a single study in meta-analyses. Preparation of Evidence Tables Two Guideline staff reviewers independently read and coded each article that met inclusion criteria. The reviewers coded the treatment characteristics that were used in data analyses (see Tables 6.1 and 6.2 in Chapter 6). The same general coding procedure employed during the 2000 Guideline process was employed during the update. When adjustments to the coding process were made, articles coded with the original process were re-coded to reflect the changed coding (e.g., more refined coding criteria were used for the coding of treatment intensity). A third reviewer then examined the coding of both reviewers and adjudicated any differences. Discrepancies that could not be resolved through this process were adjudicated by the project manager, Panel chair, and/or the Panel’s senior scientist. Finally, each article accepted for a meta-analysis had key fields reviewed by the project manager as a final quality check. The data then were compiled and used in relevant analyses and/or Panel deliberations. Analyses done for the 2000 Guideline revealed that intervention coding categories could be used reliably by independent raters.94 Overview and Methods

Tobacco Use and Dependence Guideline Panel

Papers

Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update

Clinical Interventions for Tobacco Use and Dependence