Barbara Riegel

ACC/AHA 2005 practice guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic) : A collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Su

Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease (Lower Extremity, Renal, Mesenteric, and Abdominal Aortic) A Collaborative Report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery,* Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease) Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation

ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult

![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1

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)

Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction : ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable ISSN: 1524-4539 Copyright

ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation): Developed in Collaboration With the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society

Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FACC, FAHA, FESC, Chair; Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Vice-Chair; Cynthia D. Adams, MSN, APRN-BC, FAHA; Jeffery L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA; Elliott M. Antman, MD, FACC, FAHA[‡][1]; Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA; Sharon Ann Hunt, MD, FACC, FAHA; Rick Nishimura,

1999 Update: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction)

Executive Summary andListing of Recommendations These guidelines are intended for physicians, nurses, and allied healthcare personnel who care for patients with suspected or established acute myocardial infarction (MI). These guidelines have been officially endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the American College of Emergency Physicians, and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. This executive summary and listing of recommendations appears in the November 1, 1996, issue of Circulation. The guidelines in their entirety, including the ACC/AHA Class I, II, and III recommendations, are published in the November 1996 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Beginning with these guidelines, the full text of ACC/AHA guidelines will be published in one journal and the executive summary and listing of recommendations in the other . Reprints of both the full text and the executive summary with its listing of recommendations are available from both organizations. Each year 900 000 people in the United States experience acute MI. Of these, roughly 225 000 die, including 125 000 who die “in the field” before obtaining medical care. Most of these deaths are arrhythmic in etiology. Because early reperfusion treatment of patients with acute MI improves left ventricular (LV) systolic function and survival, every effort must be made to minimize prehospital delay. Indeed, efforts are ongoing to promote rapid identification and treatment of patients with acute MI, including (1) patient education about the symptoms of acute MI and appropriate actions to take and (2) prompt initial care of the patient by the community emergency medical system. In treating the patient with chest pain, emergency medical system personnel must act with a sense of urgency. When the patient with suspected acute MI reaches the emergency department (ED), evaluation and initial management should take place promptly, because the benefit of reperfusion therapy is greatest if therapy …

2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease: Executive summary: A report of the american college of cardiology foundation/american heart association task force on practice guidelines, american association for thoracic surgery, american college of radiology, american stroke association

2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine

2007 focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

Elliott M. Antman, MD, FACC, FAHA, Co-Chair*†; Mary Hand, MSPH, RN, FAHA, Co-Chair; Paul W. Armstrong, MD, FACC, FAHA‡§; Eric R. Bates, MD, FACC, FAHA; Lee A. Green, MD, MPH ; Lakshmi K. Halasyamani, MD¶; Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA**; Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, FACC, FAHA††; Gervasio A. Lamas, MD, FACC**; Charles J. Mullany, MB, MS, FACC; David L. Pearle, MD, FACC, FAHA; Michael A. Sloan, MD, FACC; Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FACC, FAHA§§

ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association request that the following format be used when citing this document: Ryan TJ, Antman EM, Brooks NH, Califf RM, Hillis LD, Hiratzka LF, Rapaport E, Riegel B, Russell RO, Smith EE III, Weaver WD. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction: 1999 update: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). Available at http://www.acc.org/clinical/guidelines and http://www.americanheart.org. Accessed on [insert date].

A Situation-Specific Theory of Heart Failure Self-care

Heart failure, a common syndrome in developed countries worldwide, is associated with poor quality of life, frequent rehospitalizations, and early death. Self-care is essential to improving outcomes in this patient population. The purpose of this article is to describe a situation-specific theory of heart failure self-care in which self-care is defined as a naturalistic decision-making process involving the choice of behaviors that maintain physiologic stability (maintenance) and the response to symptoms when they occur (management). Self-care maintenance is further defined to encompass routine symptom monitoring and treatment adherence. Self-care management is characterized as a process initiated by symptom recognition and evaluation, which stimulates the use of self-care treatments and treatment evaluation. Confidence in self-care is thought to moderate and/or mediate the effect of self-care on various outcomes. Four propositions were derived from the self-care of heart failure conceptual model: (1) symptom recognition is the key to successful self-care management; (2) self-care is better in patients with more knowledge, skill, experience, and compatible values; (3) confidence moderates the relationship between self-care and outcomes; and (4) confidence mediates the relationship between self-care and outcomes. These propositions were tested and supported using data obtained in previous research. Support of these propositions provides early evidence for this situation-specific theory of heart failure self-care.

An Update on the Self-Care of Heart Failure Index

Background:The Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) is a measure of self-care defined as a naturalistic decision-making process involving the choice of behaviors that maintain physiological stability (maintenance) and the response to symptoms when they occur (management). In the 5 years since the SCHFI was published, we have added items, refined the response format of the maintenance scale and the SCHFI scoring procedure, and modified our advice about how to use the scores. Objective:The objective of this article was to update users on these changes. Methods:In this article, we address 8 specific questions about reliability, item difficulty, frequency of administration, learning effects, social desirability, validity, judgments of self-care adequacy, clinically relevant change, and comparability of the various versions. Results:The addition of items to the self-care maintenance scale did not significantly change the coefficient &agr;, providing evidence that the structure of the instrument is more powerful than the individual items. No learning effect is associated with repeated administration. Social desirability is minimal. More evidence is provided of the validity of the SCHFI. A score of 70 or greater can be used as the cut-point to judge self-care adequacy, although evidence is provided that benefit occurs at even lower levels of self-care. A change in a scale score more than one-half of an SD is considered clinically relevant. Because of the standardized scores, results obtained with prior versions can be compared with those from later versions. Conclusion:The SCHFI v.6 is ready to be used by investigators. By publication in this format, we are putting the instrument in the public domain; permission is not required to use the SCHFI.