2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Arnett DK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8344373 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8351755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe study aims to examine the extent to which the updated ACC/AHA management of blood cholesterol guideline (2018) is implemented in practice and to assess the value of the clinical pharmacist interventions in improving physicians' adherence the guidelines recommendations.MethodsWe utilized in this study an interventional before-after design. The study was conducted on 272 adult patients who visited the study site internal medicine clinics and were candidates for statin therapy based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guidelines for cholesterol management. Adherence to guideline recommendations was measured before and after clinical pharmacists' interventions by calculating the percentage of patients receiving statin therapy as per guideline recommendation, the type and intensity (moderate or high intensity) of statin therapy used, and the need for additional non-statin therapy.ResultsAdherence with guideline recommendations was significantly improved from 60.3% to 92.6% (X2 = 79.1, p = 0.0001) after clinical pharmacist interventions. Among patients who were on statin therapy, the percentage of those who were on proper statin intensity increased significantly from 47.6% to 94.4% (X2 = 72.5, p = 0.0001). The combination of statins with non-statin therapies such as ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors increased from 8.5% to 30.6% (X2 = 95, p<0.0001) and from 0.0% to 1.6% (X2 = 6, p = 0.014), respectively. The use of other lipid-lowering agents was diminished from 14.6% to 3.2% (X2 = 19.2, p<0.0001).ConclusionCollaboration between physicians and clinical pharmacists is a crucial strategy to improve patients' treatment and hence, achieve better health outcomes among patients suffering from dyslipidemia.
| S-EPMC10042341 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4500543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo review the literature systematically and perform meta-analyses to address these questions: 1) Is there evidence that self-measured blood pressure (BP) without other augmentation is superior to office-based measurement of BP for achieving better BP control or for preventing adverse clinical outcomes that are related to elevated BP? 2) What is the optimal target for BP lowering during antihypertensive therapy in adults? 3) In adults with hypertension, how do various antihypertensive drug classes differ in their benefits and harms compared with each other as first-line therapy?MethodsElectronic literature searches were performed by Doctor Evidence, a global medical evidence software and services company, across PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to 2015 using key words and relevant subject headings for randomized controlled trials that met eligibility criteria defined for each question. We performed analyses using traditional frequentist statistical and Bayesian approaches, including random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses.ResultsOur results suggest that: 1) There is a modest but significant improvement in systolic BP in randomized controlled trials of self-measured BP versus usual care at 6 but not 12 months, and for selected patients and their providers self-measured BP may be a helpful adjunct to routine office care. 2) systolic BP lowering to a target of <130 mm Hg may reduce the risk of several important outcomes including risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and major cardiovascular events. No class of medications (i.e., angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, or beta blockers) was significantly better than thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics as a first-line therapy for any outcome.
| S-EPMC8654280 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9222652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Cholesterol Management Guideline recommends moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy in eligible patients.ObjectiveTo examine adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline in US cardiology practices.Design, setting, and participantsAmong 161 cardiology practices, trends in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were analyzed before (September 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013) and after (February 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015) publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline among 4 mutually exclusive risk groups within the ACC Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry. Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate for differences in trend in use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use in hierarchical logistic regression models. Participants were a population-based sample of 1 105 356 preguideline patients (2 431 192 patient encounters) and 1 116 472 postguideline patients (2 377 219 patient encounters). Approximately 97% of patients had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).ExposuresModerate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use before and after publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline.Main outcomes and measuresTime trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT.ResultsIn the study cohort, the mean (SD) age was 69.6 (12.1) years among 1 105 356 patients (40.2% female) before publication of the guideline and 70.0 (11.9) years among 1 116 472 patients (39.8% female) after publication of the guideline. Although there was a trend toward increasing use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins overall and in the ASCVD cohort, such a trend was already present before publication of the guideline. No significant difference in trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins was observed in other groups. The use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy was 62.1% (before publication of the guideline) and 66.6% (after publication of the guideline) in the overall cohort, 62.7% (before publication) and 67.0% (after publication) in the ASCVD cohort, 50.6% (before publication) and 52.3% (after publication) in the cohort with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (ie, ≥190 mg/dL), 52.4% (before publication) and 55.2% (after publication) in the diabetes cohort, and 41.9% (before publication) and 46.9% (after publication) in the remaining group with 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5% or higher. In hierarchical logistic regression models, there was a significant increase in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins in the overall cohort (4.8%) and in the ASCVD cohort (4.3%) (P < .01 for slope for both). There was no significant change for other risk cohorts. Nonstatin LLT use remained unchanged in the preguideline and postguideline periods in the hierarchical logistic regression models for all of the risk groups.Conclusions and relevanceAdoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Management Guideline in cardiology practices was modest. Timely interventions are needed to improve guideline-concordant practice to reduce the burden of ASCVD.
| S-EPMC5470413 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5721754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little is known regarding the durability of clinical practice guideline recommendations over time.To characterize variations in the durability of class I ("procedure/treatment should be performed/administered") American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline recommendations.Textual analysis by 4 independent reviewers of 11 guidelines published between 1998 and 2007 and revised between 2006 and 2013.We abstracted all class I recommendations from the first of the 2 most recent versions of each guideline and identified corresponding recommendations in the subsequent version. We classified recommendations replaced by less determinate or contrary recommendations as having been downgraded or reversed; we classified recommendations for which no corresponding item could be identified as having been omitted. We tested for differences in the durability of recommendations according to guideline topic and underlying level of evidence using bivariable hypothesis tests and conditional logistic regression.Of 619 index recommendations, 495 (80.0%; 95% CI, 76.6%-83.1%) were retained in the subsequent guideline version, 57 (9.2%; 95% CI, 7.0%-11.8%) were downgraded or reversed, and 67 (10.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-13.3%) were omitted. The percentage of recommendations retained varied across guidelines from 15.4% (95% CI, 1.9%-45.4%) to 94.1% (95% CI, 80.3%-99.3%; P?<?.001). Among recommendations with available information on level of evidence, 90.5% (95% CI, 83.2%-95.3%) of recommendations supported by multiple randomized studies were retained, vs 81.0% (95% CI, 74.8%-86.3%) of recommendations supported by 1 randomized trial or observational data and 73.7% (95% CI, 65.8%-80.5%) of recommendations supported by opinion (P?=?.001). After accounting for guideline-level factors, the probability of being downgraded, reversed, or omitted was greater for recommendations based on opinion (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.69-5.85; P?<?.001) or on 1 trial or observational data (odds ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.45-8.41; P?=?.005) vs recommendations based on multiple trials.The durability of class I cardiology guideline recommendations for procedures and treatments promulgated by the ACC/AHA varied across individual guidelines and levels of evidence. Downgrades, reversals, and omissions were most common among recommendations not supported by multiple randomized studies.
| S-EPMC4346183 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8059763 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6439920 | biostudies-literature