Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the performance of major guidelines for the assessment of stable chest pain including risk-based (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology) and symptom-focused (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) strategies.BackgroundAlthough noninvasive testing is not recommended in low-risk individuals with stable chest pain, guidelines recommend differing approaches to defining low-risk patients.MethodsPatient-level data were obtained from the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) and SCOT-HEART (Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart) trials. Pre-test probability was determined and patients dichotomized into low-risk and intermediate-high-risk groups according to each guideline's definitions. The primary endpoint was obstructive coronary artery disease on coronary computed tomography angiography. Secondary endpoints were coronary revascularization at 90 days and cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction up to 3 years.ResultsIn total, 13,773 patients were included of whom 6,160 had coronary computed tomography angiography. The proportions of patients identified as low risk by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, respectively, were 2.5%, 2.5%, and 10.0% within PROMISE, and 14.0%, 19.8%, and 38.4% within SCOT-HEART. All guidelines identified lower rates of obstructive coronary artery disease in low- versus intermediate-high-risk patients with a negative predictive value of ≥0.90. Compared with low-risk groups, all intermediate-high-risk groups had greater risks of coronary revascularization (odds ratio [OR]: 2.2 to 24.1) and clinical outcomes (OR: 1.84 to 5.8).ConclusionsCompared with risk-based guidelines, symptom-focused assessment identifies a larger group of low-risk chest pain patients potentially deriving limited benefit from noninvasive testing. (Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart Trial [SCOT-HEART]; NCT01149590; Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain [PROMISE]; NCT01174550).

Project description:Background Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina severity classification is associated with mortality, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization in clinical trial and registry data. The objective of this study was to determine associations between CCS class and all-cause mortality and healthcare utilization, using natural language processing to extract CCS classifications from clinical notes. Methods and Results In this retrospective cohort study of veterans in the United States with stable angina from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2013, natural language processing extracted CCS classifications. Veterans with a prior diagnosis of coronary artery disease were excluded. Outcomes included all-cause mortality (primary), all-cause and cardiovascular-specific hospitalizations, coronary revascularization, and 1-year healthcare costs. Of 299 577 veterans identified, 14 216 (4.7%) had ≥1 CCS classification extracted by natural language processing. The mean age was 66.6±9.8 years, 99% of participants were male, and 81% were white. During a median follow-up of 3.4 years, all-cause mortality rates were 4.58, 4.60, 6.22, and 6.83 per 100 person-years for CCS classes I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality comparing CCS II, III, and IV with those in class I were 1.05 (95% CI, 0.95-1.15), 1.33 (95% CI, 1.20-1.47), and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.25-1.76), respectively. The multivariable hazard ratio comparing CCS IV with CCS I was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.09-1.33) for all-cause hospitalization, 1.25 (95% CI, 0.96-1.64) for acute coronary syndrome hospitalizations, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.80-1.26) for heart failure hospitalizations, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.88-1.25) for atrial fibrillation hospitalizations, 1.92 (95% CI, 1.40-2.64) for percutaneous coronary intervention, and 2.51 (95% CI, 1.99-3.16) for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Conclusions Natural language processing-extracted CCS classification was positively associated with all-cause mortality and healthcare utilization, demonstrating the prognostic importance of anginal symptom assessment and documentation.

Project description:IntroductionPrevious reviews indicate that the effect of acupuncture on stable angina pectoris (SAP) remains controversial. The results of trials published in the past 5 years may possibly change this situation, but an updated systematic review is not available. We therefore designed this study to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for treating SAP.Methods and analysisNine online databases will be searched without language or publication status restrictions from their inception to September 2017. Randomised controlled trials that include patients with stable angina receiving acupuncture therapy versus a control group will be deemed eligible. The selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be carried out by two independent reviewers. Data synthesis will be performed using RevMan V.5.3 software with either a fixed effects model or random effects model, depending on the heterogeneity test. Evidence quality will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. The efficacy-effectiveness spectrum for each included trial will be rated using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-effectiveness Spectrum tool. Outcomes of interest include the improvement of weekly angina attacks and reduction of nitroglycerin medication use after receiving acupuncture treatment, the incidence of cardiovascular events, heart rate variability, pain intensity measured on a visual analogue scale, total workload and exercise duration at peak exercise, safety and adverse events. A meta-analysis will be conducted if no considerable heterogeneity is detected. The results will be presented as risk ratios with 95% CIs for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences or standardised mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will not involve private information from individuals or endanger their rights, and therefore does not necessarily require ethical approval. The results may be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated in relevant conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42015016201.

Project description:BackgroundScientific knowledge is in constant change. The flow of new information requires a frequent re-evaluation of the available research results. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are not exempted from this phenomenon and need to be kept updated to maintain the validity of their recommendations. The objective of our review is to systematically identify, describe and assess strategies for monitoring and updating CPGs.Study design and settingWe conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating one or more methods of updating (with or without monitoring) CPGs or recommendations. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library) from 1966 to June 2012. Additionally, we hand-searched reference lists of the included studies and the Guidelines International Network book of abstracts. If necessary, we contacted study authors to obtain additional information.ResultsWe included a total of eight studies. Four evaluated if CPGs were out of date, three updated CPGs, and one continuously monitored and updated CPGs. The most detailed reported phase of the process was the identification of new evidence. As opposed to studies updating guidelines, studies evaluating if CPGs were out of date applied restricted searches. Only one study compared a restricted versus an exhaustive search suggesting that a restricted search is sufficient to assess recommendations' Validity. One study analyzed the survival time of CPGs and suggested that these should be reassessed every three years.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence about the optimal strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines. A restricted search is likely to be sufficient to monitor new evidence and assess the need to update, however, more information is needed about the timing and type of search. Only the exhaustive search strategy has been assessed for the update of CPGs. The development and evaluation of more efficient strategies is needed to improve the timeliness and reduce the burden of maintaining the validity of CPGs.

Dataset Information

Updating guidelines on stable angina.

Publications

Updating guidelines on stable angina.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets