Robert A. O'Rourke

ACC/AHA 2002 Guideline Update for the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina—Summary Article A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina)

The Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians–American Society of Internal Medicine acknowledges the scientific validity of this product as a background paper and as a review that captures the levels of evidence in the management of patients with chronic stable angina as of November 17, 2002. The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines regularly reviews existing guidelines to determine when an update or a full revision is needed. This process gives priority to areas in which major changes in text, and particularly recommendations, are merited on the basis of new understanding or evidence. Minor changes in verbiage and references are discouraged. The ACC/AHA/American College of Physicians–American Society of Internal Medicine (ACP-ASIM) Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina, which were published in June 1999, have now been updated. The full-text guideline incorporating the updated material is available on the Internet (www.acc.org or www.americanheart.org) in both a track-changes version showing the changes in the 1999 guideline in strike-out (deleted text) and highlighting …

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].

Outcomes in Patients with Acute Non–Q-Wave Myocardial Infarction Randomly Assigned to an Invasive as Compared with a Conservative Management Strategy

Background Non–Q-wave myocardial infarction is usually managed according to an “invasive” strategy (i.e., one of routine coronary angiography followed by myocardial revascularization). Methods We randomly assigned 920 patients to either “invasive” management (462 patients) or “conservative” management, defined as medical therapy and noninvasive testing, with subsequent invasive management if indicated by the development of spontaneous or inducible ischemia (458 patients), within 72 hours of the onset of a non–Q-wave infarction. Death or nonfatal infarction made up the combined primary end point. Results During an average follow-up of 23 months, 152 events (80 deaths and 72 nonfatal infarctions) occurred in 138 patients who had been randomly assigned to the invasive strategy, and 139 events (59 deaths and 80 nonfatal infarctions) in 123 patients assigned to the conservative strategy (P=0.35). Patients assigned to the invasive strategy had worse clinical outcomes during the first year of follow-up. The numb...

ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Clinical Application of Echocardiography

### Preamble It is clearly important that the medical profession plays a significant role in critically evaluation of the use of diagnostic procedures and therapies in the management or prevention of disease. Rigorous and expert analysis of the available data documenting relative benefits and risks of those procedures and therapies can produce helpful guidelines that …

ACC/AHA/ACP-ASIM Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina A Report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina)

### Table of contents It is important that the medical profession play a significant role in critically evaluating the use of diagnostic procedures and therapies in the management or prevention of disease states. Rigorous and expert analysis of the available data documenting relative benefits and

Effect of PCI on Quality of Life in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND It has not been clearly established whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can provide an incremental benefit in quality of life over that provided by optimal medical therapy among patients with chronic coronary artery disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 2287 patients with stable coronary disease to PCI plus optimal medical therapy or to optimal medical therapy alone. We assessed angina-specific health status (with the use of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire) and overall physical and mental function (with the use of the RAND 36-item health survey [RAND-36]). RESULTS At baseline, 22% of the patients were free of angina. At 3 months, 53% of the patients in the PCI group and 42% in the medical-therapy group were angina-free (P<0.001). Baseline mean (+/-SD) Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores (which range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status) were 66+/-25 for physical limitations, 54+/-32 for angina stability, 69+/-26 for angina frequency, 87+/-16 for treatment satisfaction, and 51+/-25 for quality of life. By 3 months, these scores had increased in the PCI group, as compared with the medical-therapy group, to 76+/-24 versus 72+/-23 for physical limitation (P=0.004), 77+/-28 versus 73+/-27 for angina stability (P=0.002), 85+/-22 versus 80+/-23 for angina frequency (P<0.001), 92+/-12 versus 90+/-14 for treatment satisfaction (P<0.001), and 73+/-22 versus 68+/-23 for quality of life (P<0.001). In general, patients had an incremental benefit from PCI for 6 to 24 months; patients with more severe angina had a greater benefit from PCI. Similar incremental benefits from PCI were seen in some but not all RAND-36 domains. By 36 months, there was no significant difference in health status between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable angina, both those treated with PCI and those treated with optimal medical therapy alone had marked improvements in health status during follow-up. The PCI group had small, but significant, incremental benefits that disappeared by 36 months. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007657.)

ACC/AHA/ACP-ASIM guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: Executive summary and recommendations: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Chronic Stable Angina)

### A. Organization of Committee and Evidence Review The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to make recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Ischemic heart disease is the single leading cause of death in the United States. The most common manifestation of this disease is chronic stable angina. Recognizing the importance of the management of this common entity and the absence of national clinical practice guidelines in this area, the task force formed the Committee on Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina to develop guidelines for the management of stable angina. Because this problem is frequently encountered in the practice of internal medicine, the task force invited the American College of Physicians–American Society of Internal Medicine (ACP–ASIM) to serve as a partner in this effort by identifying 3 general internists to serve on the committee. The guidelines are arbitrarily divided into 4 sections: diagnosis, risk stratification, treatment, and patient follow-up. Experienced clinicians will quickly recognize that the distinctions between these sections may be arbitrary and unrealistic for individual patients. However, for most clinical decision making, these divisions are helpful and facilitate the presentation and analysis of the available evidence. Detailed evidence was developed whenever possible. The weight of the evidence was ranked highest (A) if the data were derived from multiple randomized clinical trials involving large numbers of patients and intermediate (B) if the data were derived from a limited number of randomized trials involving small numbers of patients or careful analyses of nonrandomized studies or observational regis-tries. A low rank (C) was given when expert consensus was the primary basis for the recommendation. The customary ACC/AHA classifications I, II, and III are used in tables that summarize both the evidence and expert opinion and provide final recommendations for both patient …

ACC/AHA 2008 Guideline Update on Valvular Heart Disease: Focused Update on Infective Endocarditis A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Robert O. Bonow, MD, MACC, FAHA, Chair Blase A. Carabello, MD, FACC, FAHA Kanu Chatterjee, MB, FACC Antonio C. de Leon, Jr, MD, FACC, FAHA David P. Faxon, MD, FACC, FAHA Michael D. Freed, MD, FACC, FAHA William H. Gaasch, MD, FACC, FAHA Bruce W. Lytle, MD, FACC, FAHA Rick A. Nishimura, MD,

American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents

This document has been developed as a Clinical Expert Consensus Document (CECD), combining the resources of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCA&I). It is intended to provide a perspective on the current state of cardiac

Guidelines for clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Committee on Radionuclide Imaging), developed in collaboration with the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology☆

Abstract It is becoming more apparent each day that despite a strong national commitment to excellence in health care, the resources and personnel are finite. It is therefore appropriate that the medical profession examine the impact of developing technology and new therapeutic modalities on the practice of cardiology. Such analysis, carefully conducted, could potentially affect the cost of medical care without diminishing the effectiveness of that care. To this end, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association in 1980 established a Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures with the following charge: The Task Force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association shall develop guidelines relative to the role of new therapeutic approaches and of specific noninvasive and invasive procedures in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. The Task Force shall address, when appropriate, the contribution, uniqueness, sensitivity, specificity, indications, contra-indications and cost-effectiveness of such diagnostic procedures and therapeutic modalities. The Task Force shall emphasize the role and values of the developed guidelines as an educational resource. The Task Force shall include a Chairman and six members, three representatives from the American Heart Association and three representatives from the American College of Cardiology. The Task Force may select ad hoc members as needed upon the approval of the Presidents of both organizations. Recommendations of the Task Force are forwarded to the President of each organization.