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.

This study places more of an emphasis on the hypertensive guidelines that are recommended for the management of hypertension by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA), as well as the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH). This study examines the development of several different guidelines and focuses primarily on contrasting the similarities and differences that are given by American and European guidelines. Both sets of recommendations encourage the use of an optimal method for measuring blood pressure, such as the use of home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, or ambulatory monitoring, which a key recommendation is given by both sets of recommendations for the primary prevention of hypertension, and non-pharmacological treatment, such as modifying one\'s lifestyle, as the primary intervention. There are some differences between American and European BP treatment guidelines when it comes to determining what constitutes high BP and determining what BP level should serve as the treatment goal. To start pharmacological therapy, the AHA and ACC suggest maintaining a BP of at least 130/80 mmHg with an ASCVD positive or a cardiovascular risk of more than 10%, but the ESH and ESC propose maintaining a BP of at least 140-159/90-99 mmHg. Following American rules, high BP is divided into two stages; however, according to European recommendations, it is divided into three stages. Both sets of recommendations strongly encourage the use of combination therapies that only require one pill, such as single-pill treatment for multiple conditions, and both sets of recommendations restrict the use of certain drugs, such as beta-blockers, to patients who also have additional medical conditions.

暂无摘要。

This review compares the recommendations of the recent 2020 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) and 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) guidelines on the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD). ACC/AHA and ESC/EACTS guidelines are both the updated versions of previous 2017 documents. Both guidelines fundamentally agree on the extended indications of percutaneous valve interventions, the optimal use of imaging modalities other than 2D echocardiography, the importance of a multidisciplinary Heart Team as well as active patient participation in clinical decision making, more widespread use of NOACs and earlier intervention with lower left ventricular dilatation thresholds to decrease long-term mortality. The differences between the guidelines are mainly related to the classification of the severity of valve pathologies and frequency of follow-up, level of recommendations of valve intervention indications in special patient groups such as frail patients and the left ventricular diameter and ejection fraction thresholds for intervention.

UNASSIGNED: Statin eligibility based on the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines among patients with diabetes admitted with first time acute myocardial infarction has not been evaluated in the Middle East.
UNASSIGNED: To assess statin eligibility for diabetic patients admitted with first time myocardial infarction in Jordan according to ACC/AHA guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: Consecutive patients admitted with a first acute myocardial infarction who were not taking statins, and had their serum lipoproteins measured upon hospital admission were enrolled in the study. Statin eligibility among patients with diabetes admitted with first time myocardial infarction was determined based on the ACC/AHA guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: Of 774 patients enrolled, 292 (37.30%) had diabetes. Compared with non-diabetic patients, those with diabetes were females, older, more hypertension, more hypercholesterolemia, more triglycerides, more diastolic blood pressure, less smokers and less low density lipoprotein. Among patients with diabetes, 242 diabetic patients (82.9%) were statin eligible, including 20 (6.90%) for having high serum levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >190 mg/dL, and 222 (76%) for being aged 40-75 years with LDL-C 70-189 mg/dL. No patient had a calculated atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk score ≥7.5%. On the other hand, 393 non-diabetic patients (81.3%) were statin eligible, including 41 (8.50%) for having high serum levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >190 mg/dL, and 351 (72.80%) for being aged 40-75 years with LDL-C 70-189 mg/dL.
UNASSIGNED: Based on the ACC/AHA guidelines, the majority of patients with diabetes admitted with first acute myocardial infarction would have been eligible for statin treatment if they have LDL-c >190 mg/dl or aged 40-75 years old and they have their LDL 70-189 mg/gl. More efforts should be taken for patients who are female, older than 50 years, hypertensive, elevated diastolic blood pressure have hypercholesterolemia, and elevated triglycerides because of their significant association with diabetes.

Hypertension is an established risk factor for the development of atrial fibrillation (AF). We evaluated the association and population impact of hypertension, defined using the new 2017 guidelines, on risk of AF.
In this analysis, we included 14,915 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study without history of AF. Participants underwent blood pressure measurements at baseline and their antihypertensive medication use was assessed. Incident AF was ascertained from study electrocardiograms, hospital records and death certificates. Cox proportional models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of AF among individuals with hypertension based on the JNC7 and 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines. Poisson models were used to obtain risk ratios and calculate population-attributable fractions (PAFs).
We identified 2891 cases of incident AF during 21.4 years of mean follow-up. Prevalence of hypertension was 34 and 48% under the JNC7 and 2017 ACC/AHA definitions, respectively. HRs (95%CI) of AF in hypertensives versus non-hypertensives were 1.44 (1.32, 1.56) and 1.37 (1.26, 1.48) after multivariable adjustment under the old and new guidelines, respectively. The corresponding PAF (95%CI) using the old and new guidelines were 11% (8, 13%) and 13% (9, 16%), respectively.
Overall, our analysis shows that even though the prevalence of hypertension using the new criteria is 40% higher than with the old criteria, this does not translate into meaningful increases in AF attributable to hypertension. These results suggest that prevention or treatment of hypertension based on the new (versus old) guidelines may have limited impact on AF incidence.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of data regarding the attainment of lipid-lowering treatment goals according to the recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. The aim of the present study was to assess how applicable these 2013 recommendations are in the setting of an Outpatient University Hospital Lipid Clinic.
METHODS: This was a retrospective (from 1999 to 2013) observational study including 1000 consecutive adults treated for hyperlipidemia and followed up for ≥3 years. Comparisons for the applicability of current European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) and recent ACC/AHA guidelines were performed.
RESULTS: Achievement rates of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets set by ESC/EAS were 21%, 44% and 62% among patients at very high, high and moderate cardiovascular risk, respectively, receiving statin monotherapy. Among individuals on high-intensity statins only 47% achieved the anticipated ≥50% LDL-C reduction, i.e. the ACC/AHA target. The corresponding rate was significantly greater among those on statin + ezetimibe (76%, p < 0.05). Likewise, higher rates of LDL-C target attainment according to ESC/EAS guidelines were observed in patients on statin + ezetimibe compared with statin monotherapy (37, 50 and 71% for the three risk groups, p < 0.05 for the very high risk group).
CONCLUSIONS: The application of the ACC/AHA guidelines may be associated with undertreatment of high risk patients due to suboptimal LDL-C response to high-intensity statins in clinical practice. Adding ezetimibe substantially increases the rate of the ESC/EAS LDL-C target achievement together with the rate of LDL-C lowering response suggested by the ACC/AHA.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines have recommended against coronary revascularization before noncardiac surgery in patients with asymptomatic coronary artery disease. However, myocardial infarction after thoracic aneurysm (TA) repair dramatically increases the morbidity and mortality. Revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting before TA repair minimizes the incidence of perioperative ischemia. However, the recovery can be prolonged, and a percentage of patients will either never return for aneurysm repair or will develop a rupture during convalescence. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before TA repair might be preferable. Previous studies examining PCI before major vascular surgery included few patients with TAs. We examined the outcomes of patients undergoing PCI before TA repair.
METHODS: From 1997 to 2012, 592 patients underwent TA repair. Patients presenting for elective repair underwent cardiac catheterization before surgery. Those with significant single- or double-vessel coronary artery disease underwent PCI. The perioperative outcomes were examined and compared with those of patients undergoing TA repair without revascularization.
RESULTS: A total of 44 patients (7.4%) underwent PCI with bare metal stents before surgery. No PCI-related complications occurred. Dual antiplatelet therapy was administered for 4 to 6 weeks. No instances of aneurysm rupture occurred in the interval between PCI and surgery. The incidence of stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and mortality for those undergoing PCI was 0. No bleeding complications occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: PCI is safe and efficacious in patients undergoing TA repair. Aneurysm rupture did not occur in the interval before surgery. Antiplatelet therapy did not increase the risk of bleeding complications. Stent thrombosis was not seen. We recommend PCI those with significant single- or double-vessel coronary artery disease before elective TA repair.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and all-cause mortality across the spectrum of coronary artery disease (CAD).
METHODS: The study included 18,999 patients during a study period of April 1, 2004, through October 31, 2010. The primary end points were in-hospital and follow-up all-cause mortality. According to the quartiles of FPG levels, patients were categorized into 4 groups: quartile 1, less than 5.1 mmol/L; quartile 2, 5.1 to less than 5.9 mmol/L; quartile 3, 5.9 to less than 7.5 mmol/L; and quartile 4, 7.5 mmol/L or greater. The conversion factor for units of plasma glucose is 1.00 mmol/L equals 18 mg/dL. Presented as mg/dL, the 4 quartile ranges of plasma glucose concentrations used in our data analysis are ≤90.0 mg/dL, 90.1-106.0 mg/dL, 106.1 mg/dL-135.0 mg/dL and ≥135.1 mg/dL. Quartile 1 was recognized as the lower glycemic group, quartiles 2 and 3 as the normoglycemic groups, and quartile 4 as the higher glycemic group.
RESULTS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality for the dysglycemic groups was higher than for the normoglycemic groups: in-hospital mortality for quartiles 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 1.0%, 0.9%, 0.2%, and 1.5%, respectively (P=.001); follow-up mortality for quartiles 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 1.7%, 0.9%, 0.3%, and 1.8%, respectively (P<.001). In patients with stable CAD, no significant differences in mortality were found among groups. However, in patients with unstable angina pectoris, the normoglycemic groups had lower follow-up mortality and roughly equal in-hospital mortality compared with the dysglycemic groups. After adjusting for confounding factors, this observation persisted.
CONCLUSIONS: The association between lower FPG level and mortality differed across the spectrum of CAD. In patients with acute myocardial infarction, there was a U-shaped relationship. In patients with stable CAD or unstable angina pectoris, mildly to moderately decreasing FPG level was associated with neither higher nor lower all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses adherence to performance measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in six Middle-Eastern countries, and its association with in-hospital mortality. Few studies have previously assessed these performance measures in the Middle East.
METHODS: This cohort study followed 5813 patients with suspected AMI upon admission to discharge. Proportions of eligible participants receiving the following performance measures were calculated: medications within 24 hours of admission (aspirin and beta-blocker) and on discharge (aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEI], and lipid-lowering therapy), reperfusion therapy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol measurement. A composite adherence score was calculated. Associations between performance measures and clinical characteristics were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.
RESULTS: Adherence was above 90% for aspirin, reperfusion, and lipid-lowering therapies; between 60% and 82% for beta-blockers, ACEI, statin therapy, time-to-balloon within 90 minutes, and LDL-cholesterol measurement; and 33% for time-to-needle within 30 minutes. After adjustment, factors associated with high composite performance score (>85%) included Asian ethnicity (Odds Ratio, OR=1.3; p=0.01) and history of hyperlipidemia (OR=1.4; p=0.001). Factors associated with a lower score included atypical symptoms (OR=0.6; p=0.003) and high GRACE score (OR=0.6; p<0.001). Lower in-hospital mortality was associated with provision of reperfusion therapy (OR=0.54, p=0.047) and beta-blockers within 24 hours (OR=0.33, p=0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall adherence was lowest among the highest-risk patients. Lower in-hospital mortality was independently associated with adherence to early performance measures, comprising observational evidence for their effectiveness in a Middle East cohort. These data provide a focus for regional quality improvement initiatives and research.