L. Samuel Wann

2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline 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 Heart Rhythm Society

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Nancy M. Albert, PhD, RN, FAHA Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA Ralph G. Brindis, MD, MPH, MACC Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA[#][1] Lesley H. Curtis, PhD, FAHA David DeMets, PhD[#][1] Robert A

ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: executive summary

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained cardiac rhythm disturbance, is increasing in prevalence as the population ages. Although it is often associated with heart disease, AF occurs in many patients with no detectable disease. Hemodynamic impairment and thromboembolic events result in significant morbidity, mortality, and cost. Accordingly, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) created a committee of experts to establish guidelines for management of this arrhythmia. The committee was composed of 8 members representing the ACC and AHA, 4 representing the ESC, 1 from the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (NASPE), and a representative of the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-Based Practice Center representing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s report on Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly. This document was reviewed by 3 official reviewers nominated by the ACC, 3 nominated by the AHA, and 3 nominated by the ESC, as well as by the ACC Clinical Electrophysiology Committee, the AHA ECG and Arrhythmia Committee, NASPE, and 25 reviewers nominated by the writing committee. The document was approved for publication by the governing bodies of the ACC, AHA, and ESC and officially endorsed by NASPE. These guidelines will be reviewed annually by the task force and will be considered current unless the task force revises or withdraws them from distribution. The committee conducted a comprehensive review of the literature from 1980 to June 2000 relevant to AF using the following databases: PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry), and Best Evidence. Searches were limited to English language sources and to human subjects. ### A. Atrial Fibrillation AF is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia characterized by uncoordinated atrial activation with consequent deterioration of atrial mechanical function. On the electrocardiogram (ECG), AF …Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained cardiac rhythm disturbance, is increasing in prevalence as the population ages. Although it is often associated with heart disease, AF occurs in many patients with no detectable disease. Hemodynamic impairment and thromboembolic events result in

2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Executive Summary

Preamble 2072 1. Introduction 2074 2. Clinical Characteristics and Evaluation of AF 2076 3. Thromboembolic Risk and Treatment 2077 4. Rate Control: Recommendations 2079 5. Rhythm Control: Recommendations 2080 6. Specific Patient Groups and AF: Recommendations 2086 7. Evidence Gaps and Future Research Directions 2089 References 2090 Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant) 2095 Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant) 2097 Appendix 3. Initial Clinical Evaluation in Patients With AF 2104 The medical profession should play a central role in evaluating the evidence related to drugs, devices, and procedures for the detection, management, and prevention of disease. When properly applied, expert analysis of available data on the benefits and risks of these therapies and procedures can improve the quality of care, optimize patient outcomes, and favorably affect costs by focusing resources on the most effective strategies. An organized …

2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Updates Incorporated Into the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

For new or updated text, view the 2011 Focused Update and the 2011 Focused Update on Dabigatran. Text supporting unchanged recommendations has not been updated. It is important that the medical profession play a significant role in critically evaluating the use of diagnostic procedures and therapies as they are introduced and tested in the detection, management, or prevention of disease states. Rigorous and expert analysis of the available data documenting absolute and relative benefits and risks of those procedures and therapies can produce helpful guidelines that improve the effectiveness of care, optimize patient outcomes, and favorably affect the overall cost of care by focusing resources on the most effective strategies. The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly engaged in the production of such guidelines in the area of cardiovascular disease since 1980. The ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines, whose charge is to develop, update, or revise practice guidelines for important cardiovascular diseases and procedures, directs this effort. The Task Force is pleased to have this guideline developed in conjunction with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Writing committees are charged with the task of performing an assessment of the evidence and acting as an independent group of authors to develop or update written recommendations for clinical practice. Experts in the subject under consideration have been selected from all 3 organizations to examine subject-specific data and write guidelines. The process includes additional representatives from other medical practitioner and specialty groups when appropriate. Writing committees are specifically charged to perform a formal literature review, weigh the strength of evidence for or against a particular treatment or procedure, and include estimates of expected health outcomes where data exist. Patient-specific modifiers, comorbidities, and issues of patient preference that might influence the choice of particular …

2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Updates Incorporated Into the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in partnership with the European Society of Cardiology and in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society

Developed in partnership with the Heart Rhythm Society L. Samuel Wann, MD, MACC, FAHA, Chair[‡][1]; Anne B. Curtis, MD, FACC, FAHA[‡][1],[§][2]; Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, FACC, FHRS[†][3],[§][2]; N.A. Mark Estes III, MD, FACC, FHRS[∥][4]; Michael D. Ezekowitz, MB, ChB, FACC[‡][1];

2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Update on the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (Update on Dabigatran)

2011;57;1330-1337; originally published online Feb 14, 2011; J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Richard L. Page, David J. Slotwiner, William G. Stevenson, and Cynthia M. Tracy Michael D. Ezekowitz, Warren M. Jackman, Craig T. January, James E. Lowe, L. Samuel Wann, Anne B. Curtis, Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, N.A. Mark Estes, III, on Practice Guidelines of Cardiology Foundation Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force Atrial Fibrillation (Update on Dabigatran): A Report of the American College 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Update on the Management of Patients With This information is current as of March 11, 2012 http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/57/11/1330 located on the World Wide Web at: The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is

Left Ventricular Assist Device as Destination for Patients Undergoing Intravenous Inotropic Therapy: A Subset Analysis From REMATCH (Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance in Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure)

Background—Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have improved survival in patients with end-stage heart failure. Compared with previous trials, the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance in Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure (REMATCH) trial enrolled patients with more advanced heart failure and high prevalence of intravenous inotropic therapy. This study analyzes, on a post hoc basis, outcomes in patients undergoing inotropic infusions at randomization. Methods and Results—Of 129 patients randomized, 91 were receiving intravenous inotropic therapy at randomization to LVAD or optimal medical management (OMM). Mean systolic pressure was 100 versus 107 mm Hg in those not receiving inotropes, serum sodium was 134 versus 137 mEq/L, and left ventricular ejection fraction was 17% for both groups. LVADs improved survival throughout follow-up for patients undergoing baseline inotropic infusions (P=0.0014); for the LVAD group versus the OMM group, respectively, 6-month survival was 60% versus 39%, 1-year survival rates were 49% versus 24%, and 2-year survival rates were 28% versus 11%. For 38 patients not undergoing inotropic infusions, 6-month survival was 61% for those with LVADs and 67% for those with OMM, whereas 1-year rates were 57% and 40%, respectively (P=0.55). Quality-of-life scores for survivors improved. Median days out of hospital for patients on inotropic therapy at randomization were 255 with LVAD and 105 with OMM. Conclusions—Despite severe compromise, patients undergoing inotropic infusions at randomization derived major LVAD survival benefit with improved quality of life. Patients not undergoing inotropic infusions had higher survival rates both with and without LVAD, but differences did not reach significance. Future studies should prespecify analyses of inotropic and other therapies to determine how disease severity and parallel medical treatment influence the benefits offered by mechanical circulatory support.

ACCF/ASE/ACEP/AHA/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2008 Appropriateness Criteria for Stress Echocardiography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions...

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Update on the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (Updating the 2006 Guideline)

2011 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS L. Samuel Wann, MD, MACC, FAHA, Chair*; Anne B. Curtis, MD, FACC, FAHA*†; Craig T. January, MD, PhD, FACC*†; Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, FACC, FHRS†‡; James E. Lowe, MD, FACC*; N.A. Mark Estes III, MD, FACC, FHRS§; Richard L. Page, MD, FACC, FHRS†‡; Michael D. Ezekowitz, MB, ChB, FACC*; David J. Slotwiner, MD, FACC‡; Warren M. Jackman, MD, FACC, FHRS*; William G. Stevenson, MD, FACC, FAHA ; Cynthia M. Tracy, MD, FACC*

ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 Appropriate Use Criteria for Diagnostic Catheterization

The American College of Cardiology Foundation, in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where diagnostic catheterization is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of noninvasive imaging appropriate use criteria. The 166 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3). Diagnostic catheterization may include several different procedure components. The indications developed focused primarily on 2 aspects of diagnostic catheterization. Many indications focused on the performance of coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease with other procedure components (e.g., hemodynamic measurements, ventriculography) at the discretion of the operator. The majority of the remaining indications focused on hemodynamic measurements to evaluate valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other conditions, with the use of coronary angiography at the discretion of the operator. Seventy-five indications were rated as appropriate, 49 were rated as uncertain, and 42 were rated as inappropriate. The appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization have the potential to impact physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research.