Background/Objectives: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) shapes most clinical guidelines. Although the advent of EBM marked a significant advancement, failure to include sex differences in the study design and analysis of most trials leads to an under-representation of gender-specific medicine (GM) in EBM-directed guidelines. In this review, we evaluated how the topic of GM was developed in the guidelines produced by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) from 2018 to 2023. Methods: Two independent reviewers evaluated 24 ESC guidelines. Significant mentions of GM were counted and divided between epidemiology, diagnosis, and therapeutics. The qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis of information relating to GM was performed. Data on the number of citations of papers with a title concerning GM and the prevalence and role of women in guidelines\' authorship were also analyzed. Results: Less than 50% of guidelines had a section dedicated to GM. Only nine guidelines were led by a woman, and 144/567 authors were female. In the most recent guidelines and in those with at least 30% of female authors, there was an increased mention of GM. On average, guidelines had four significant mentions of GM regarding epidemiology, two regarding diagnosis, and one regarding therapy. Articles with titles concerning GM made up, on average, 1.5% of the total number of citations. Conclusions: Although sex differences play a significant role in most clinical scenarios, ESC guidelines still do not sufficiently account for this. The problem does not seem to solely lie in the guidelines, but in the lack of attention to GM in research needed for their preparation.

Purpose To provide a comprehensive head-to-head comparison and temporal analysis of cardiac MRI indications between the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines to identify areas of consensus and divergence. Materials and Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines published until May 2023 were systematically screened for recommendations related to cardiac MRI. The class of recommendation (COR) and level of evidence (LOE) for cardiac MRI recommendations were compared between the two guidelines and between newer versus older versions of each guideline using χ2 or Fisher exact tests. Results ESC guidelines included 109 recommendations regarding cardiac MRI, and ACC/AHA guidelines included 90 recommendations. The proportion of COR I and LOE B was higher in ACC/AHA versus ESC guidelines (60% [54 of 90] vs 46.8% [51 of 109]; P = .06 and 53% [48 of 90] vs 35.8% [39 of 109], respectively; P = .01). The increase in the number of cardiac MRI recommendations over time was significantly higher in ESC guidelines (from 63 to 109 for ESC vs from 65 to 90 for ACC/AHA; P = .03). The main areas of consensus were found in heart failure and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, while the main divergences were in valvular heart disease, arrhythmias, and aortic disease. Conclusion ESC guidelines included more recommendations related to cardiac MRI use, whereas the ACC/AHA recommendations had higher COR and LOE. The number of cardiac MRI recommendations increased significantly over time in both guidelines, indicating the increasing role of cardiac MRI evaluation and management of cardiovascular disease. Keywords: Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Guideline, European Society of Cardiology, ESC, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, ACC/AHA Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Guidelines help clinicians to deliver high-quality care with therapies based on up-to-date evidence. There has been significant progress in the management of heart failure with regards to both medication and cardiac device therapy. These advances have been incorporated into national and international guidelines with varying degrees of success. This article reviews current guidance from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence in the UK and compares this with European Society of Cardiology guidelines, and evaluates how differences between them may impact on clinical practice.

The expansion of the therapeutic armamentarium available to oncologists and haematologists has led to a significant improvement in cancer survival; however, many of the available treatments carry a risk of toxicity to the heart. Cardio-oncology has emerged as a rapidly developing subspeciality dedicated to improving the cardiovascular care of patients before, during and after cancer treatment. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardio-oncology provide a comprehensive overview of best-practice recommendations for cardiovascular care aimed at healthcare professionals treating cancer patients. The main focus of the guidelines is to ensure patients can complete their cancer treatment without significant cardiotoxicity and the correct follow-up for the first 12 months following treatment and beyond is instituted. The guidelines provide harmonisation of baseline risk stratification and toxicity definitions and encompass recommendations for all the major classes of therapy used in modern oncology and haematology. This review summarises the key points from the guidelines document.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical practice guidelines are currently considered as an essential tool supporting many cardiologists in clinical decision-making not only in Europe but all-over the world. In this study we analyzed these recommendations regarding their class of recommendations (COR) and level of evidence (LOE) to detect how solid is the scientific background behind these recommendations.
UNASSIGNED: We have abstracted all the current guidelines defined as \"the guidelines available on the ESC website by 01 October 2022\". All recommendations were classified according to their COR (Class I, IIa, IIb, or III) and LOE (A, B, or C). As every topic has different number of recommendations, we have used the median values in comparisons between different topics to give all the topics the same weight.
UNASSIGNED: Current ESC guidelines consist of 37 clinical topics including a total of 4289 recommendations. Their distribution was 2140 with a median of 49.9% in Class I, Class II and Class III were 1825 with a median of 42.6% and 324 with a median of 7.5% respectively. LOE A was only present in 667(15.5%) recommendations, 1285(30%) in LOE B, while LOE C was behind the majority of the recommendations, 2337 with a median of 54.5%.
UNASSIGNED: Although ESC guidelines are considered a gold standard for management of cardiovascular diseases, but surprisingly more than half of its recommendations are based on such scientific evidence. Deficiency in clinical trials is not the same across all guideline\'s topics, some are needier for clinical research.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (ACC/AHA/HFSA) and the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) both provide evidence-based guides for the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure (HF). In this review, we aimed to compare recommendations suggested by these guidelines highlighting the differences and latest evidence mentioned in each of the guidelines. While the staging of HF depends on left ventricular ejection fraction, the Universal Definition of HF, suggested in 2021, is described in 2022 ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines. Both guidelines recommend invasive and non-invasive tests to diagnose. Despite being identical in the backbone, some differences exist in medical therapy and devices, which can be partially attributed to the recent trials published that are presented in the American guidelines. The recommendation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator for prevention in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients, made by ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines, is among the bold differences. It seems that ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines emphasize the quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and optimization of care given to patients. On the other hand, the ESC guidelines provide recommendations for certain comorbidities. This comparison can guide clinicians in choosing the proper approach for their own settings and the writing committees in addressing the differences in order to have better consistency in future guidelines.

In 2021, two updated clinical guidelines were published, providing guidance on blood pressure (BP) targets for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) updated its 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of BP in CKD. Different systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) targets for CKD (<130/80 and <140/90 mmHg, respectively, for people with a urinary albumin: creatinine ratio >30 mg/g or without pathological albuminuria) were replaced by a single number: an SBP target of <120 mmHg is suggested, when tolerated. This represents a major decrease in the SBP target and the abandonment of DBP targets. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) also published a 2021 Clinical Guideline on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice that updates a prior 2016 guideline on prevention and the 2018 ESC/European Society of Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension. The 2021 ESC guideline was endorsed by 12 European scientific societies. The recommended office BP targets for people with CKD are <140-130 mmHg SBP (lower SBP is acceptable if tolerated) and <80 mmHg DBP. The question is: What should the practicing physician do now: treat hypertension in people with CKD to an SBP target of <120 mmHg or to a target of <140-130 mmHg? Major guideline bodies are aware of the activities of other major players. There is an urgent need for guideline bodies to establish communication channels, search consensus on major issues that impact the health of hundreds of millions of people worldwide and end individualism in guidelines generation.