Dataset Information

A systematic breakdown of the levels of evidence supporting the European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:Reviews of clinical practice guidelines have repeatedly concluded that only a minority of guideline recommendations are supported by high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether these findings apply to the whole cardiovascular evidence base or specific recommendation types and actions. METHODS:All recommendations from current European Society of Cardiology guidelines were extracted with their class (I, treatment is beneficial; II, treatment is possibly beneficial; III, treatment is harmful) and level of evidence (A, multiple randomised controlled trials/meta-analyses; B, single randomised controlled trials/large observational studies; C, expert opinion/small studies). Recommendations were categorised by type (therapeutic, diagnostic, other) and actions (e.g. pharmaceutical intervention/non-invasive imaging/test). RESULTS:In total, 3531 recommendations (median 128, interquartile range 108-150) were extracted from 27 guidelines. Therapeutic recommendations comprised 2545 (72.1%) recommendations, 411 (16.1%) were supported by level of evidence A, 833 (32.7%) by B and 1301 (51.1%) by C. Class I/III (should/should not) recommendations on minimally invasive interventions were most supported by level of evidence A (55/183, 30.1%) (B [70/183, 38.3%], C [58/183, 31.7%]), while class I/III recommendations on open surgical interventions were least supported by level of evidence A (15/164, 9.1%) (B [34/164, 20.7%], C [115/164, 70.1%]). Of all (831, 23.5%) diagnostic recommendations, just 44/503 (8.7%) class I/III recommendations were supported by level of evidence A (B (125/503, 24.9%), C (334/503, 66.4%)). CONCLUSION:Evidence levels supporting European Society of Cardiology guideline recommendations differ widely between recommendation types and actions. Attributing to this variability are different evidence requirements, therapeutic/diagnostic recommendations, different feasibility levels for trials (e.g. open surgical/pharmacological) and many off-topic/policy recommendations based on expert opinion.

SUBMITTER: van Dijk WB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6886117 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic breakdown of the levels of evidence supporting the European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

van Dijk Wouter B WB Grobbee Diederick E DE de Vries Martine C MC Groenwold Rolf H H RHH van der Graaf Rieke R Schuit Ewoud E

European journal of preventive cardiology 20190814 18

<h4>Aims</h4>Reviews of clinical practice guidelines have repeatedly concluded that only a minority of guideline recommendations are supported by high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether these findings apply to the whole cardiovascular evidence base or specific recommendation types and actions.<h4>Methods</h4>All recommendations from current European Society of Cardiology guidelines were extracted with their class (I, treatment is bene ...[more]

PMID: 31409110

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceClinical decisions are ideally based on evidence generated from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical outcomes, but historically, few clinical guideline recommendations have been based entirely on this type of evidence.ObjectiveTo determine the class and level of evidence (LOE) supporting current major cardiovascular society guideline recommendations, and changes in LOE over time.Data sourcesCurrent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guideline documents (2008-2018), as identified on cardiovascular society websites, and immediate predecessors to these guideline documents (1999-2014), as referenced in current guideline documents.Study selectionComprehensive guideline documents including recommendations organized by class and LOE.Data extraction and synthesisThe number of recommendations and the distribution of LOE (A [supported by data from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT], B [supported by data from observational studies or a single RCT], and C [supported by expert opinion only]) were determined for each guideline document.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of guideline recommendations supported by evidence from multiple RCTs (LOE A).ResultsAcross 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines (2930 recommendations; median, 121 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 76-155]), 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A, 1465 (50.0%) as LOE B, and 1217 (41.5%) as LOE C. The median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%). Across 25 current ESC guideline documents (3399 recommendations; median, 130 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 111-154]), 484 recommendations (14.2%) were classified as LOE A, 1053 (31.0%) as LOE B, and 1862 (54.8%) as LOE C. When comparing current guidelines with prior versions, the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not increase in either ACC/AHA (median, 9.0% [current] vs 11.7% [prior]) or ESC guidelines (median, 15.1% [current] vs 17.6% [prior]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines, only a small percentage were supported by evidence from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT. This pattern does not appear to have meaningfully improved from 2008 to 2018.

Project description:The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) have recently published recommendations for the use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin-9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in situations of very high risk. We aim to assess in the real world the suitability of PCSK9 inhibitors for acute coronary syndromes.We analyzed a prospective Swiss cohort of 2023 patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndromes between 2009 and 2014 with available data for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipid-lowering therapy at 1 year. Clinical familial hypercholesterolemia was defined using the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network algorithm as unlikely, possible, probable, or definite. We simulated a fixed relative reduction of 24% in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at 1 year in all patients not treated with ezetimibe, irrespective of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and statin regimen. At 1 year, 94.3% of patients were treated with statin, 5.8% with ezetimibe, and 35.8% of patients had on-target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (<1.8 mmol/L); 25.6% met criteria for possible or probable/definite familial hypercholesterolemia. After a simulation of the lipid-lowering effect of ezetimibe, the proportion of patients who would be eligible for PCSK9 inhibitors at 1 year was 13.4% using American College of Cardiology criteria and 2.7% using European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society criteria. Patients with possible or probable/definite familial hypercholesterolemia were more eligible for PCSK9 inhibitors compared with their non-familial hypercholesterolemia counterparts: 27.6% versus 8.8% according to American College of Cardiology criteria and 6.6% versus 1.8% according to European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society criteria (P<0.001).Recommendations made by the American College of Cardiology guidelines would lead to 5-fold higher eligibility rates for PCSK9 inhibitors compared to the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement in acute coronary syndrome patients.

Dataset Information

A systematic breakdown of the levels of evidence supporting the European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

Publications

A systematic breakdown of the levels of evidence supporting the European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets