Cardiovascular guidelines

心血管指南
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景/目标:循证医学(EBM)塑造了大多数临床指南。尽管EBM的出现标志着重大进步,在大多数试验的研究设计和分析中未能纳入性别差异导致在EBM指导的指南中性别特异性药物(GM)的代表性不足.在这次审查中,我们评估了2018年至2023年欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)制定的指南中GM主题的发展情况.方法:两名独立评审员评估了24条ESC指南。对转基因的重要提及进行了计数,并在流行病学之间进行了划分,诊断,和治疗学。对与GM相关的信息进行了定性和半定量分析。还分析了有关标题为GM的论文的引用数量以及女性在指南中的流行率和作用的数据。结果:不到50%的指南中有专门针对GM的部分。只有九条指导方针是由一名女性领导的,144/567作者为女性。在最新的指南中,以及那些至少有30%女性作者的指南中,对通用汽车的提及有所增加。平均而言,指南在流行病学方面有四次重要提到转基因,两个关于诊断,还有一个关于治疗的。标题与通用汽车有关的文章,平均而言,引用总数的1.5%。结论:尽管性别差异在大多数临床情况下都起着重要作用,ESC指南仍然没有充分考虑到这一点。问题似乎不仅仅在于指导方针,但在研究中缺乏对转基因的关注,需要为他们做准备。
    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.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Editorial
    目的:他汀类药物可有效减少心血管事件,但坚持他汀类药物治疗仍然是患者及其医生面临的问题.我们回顾了一篇论文,该论文估计了他汀类药物依从性差的经济成本。
    方法:作者检查了两个大型数据库(Medicare和MarketScan数据库),其中包括2018年至2019年期间因心肌梗死住院的230,000名患者,以确定有多少患者没有遵守指南推荐的抗高脂血症药物。他们还计算了不坚持推荐治疗的患者的潜在后果。
    结果:作者估计,如果所有患者都接受指南指导的药物治疗,那么,在首次心血管事件出院后的3年内,相对风险将降低22%.这些发现与以前的报告一致。这篇社论讨论了临床医生可以用来提高患者对降脂治疗建议的依从性的基本原理和策略。
    结论:作者得出结论,心血管事件后更好地遵守指南指导的脂质治疗将导致第二次事件的大幅减少。临床医生增加对他汀类药物治疗依从性的努力是必要的。
    OBJECTIVE: Statin drugs are effective at reducing cardiovascular events, but adherence to statin therapy remains a problem for patients and their physicians. We review a paper estimating the economic costs of poor adherence to statin drugs.
    METHODS: The authors examined two large databases (Medicare and Market Scan databases) including 230,000 patients with hospitalization for myocardial infarction between 2018 and 2019 to determine how many patients were not adhering to guideline-recommended anti-hyperlipidemic medications. They have also calculated the potential consequences of patients who are not adhering to the recommended therapy.
    RESULTS: The authors estimate that if all patients were receiving guideline-directed medical therapy, then a 22% relative risk reduction would occur in the 3-year period following discharge from the initial cardiovascular event. These findings are consistent with prior reports. This editorial discusses rationale and strategies clinicians can use to improve patients\' compliance with recommendations for lipid-lowering therapy.
    CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that better compliance with guideline-directed lipid therapy after a cardiovascular event would lead to a large reduction in second events. Increased efforts by clinicians to improve adherence to statin therapy are warranted.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:本研究旨在评估混合核心血管成像中专家建议和临床适应症指南的证据水平。
    方法:从成立到2023年8月,PubMed文献分析了最新版本的临床混合心血管成像技术指南,包括SPECT(/CT),PET(/CT),和PET(/MRI)分为两类:(1)用于所有主要诊断的临床指征;预后和治疗评估的亚组;以及(2)影像学检查。我们调查了这些数据在多大程度上遵循了标准方法来收集数据并提供证据水平,以及对哪个主题执行了系统审查证据。
    结果:共76条指南,2013年至2023年出版的,包括在内。指南的证据是基于7.9%病例的系统评价,47.4%的病例进行了非系统评价,19.7%的系统和非系统综述混合在一起,25%的指南没有报告任何证据.36.8%的病例报告了搜索策略。25%的指南清楚地报告了推荐的优势。23.7%的病例明确报告了外部审查的概念。最后,11.8%的纳入指南报告了方法学学家的支持.
    结论:目前使用证据程序来开发基于证据的心血管混合成像建议和指南并不理想,强调需要更标准化的方法程序。
    OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the level of evidence of expert recommendations and guidelines for clinical indications and procedurals in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.
    METHODS: From inception to August 2023, a PubMed literature analysis of the latest version of guidelines for clinical hybrid cardiovascular imaging techniques including SPECT(/CT), PET(/CT), and PET(/MRI) was performed in two categories: (1) for clinical indications for all-in primary diagnosis; subgroup in prognosis and therapy evaluation; and for (2) imaging procedurals. We surveyed to what degree these followed a standard methodology to collect the data and provide levels of evidence, and for which topic systematic review evidence was executed.
    RESULTS: A total of 76 guidelines, published between 2013 and 2023, were included. The evidence of guidelines was based on systematic reviews in 7.9% of cases, non-systematic reviews in 47.4% of cases, a mix of systematic and non-systematic reviews in 19.7%, and 25% of guidelines did not report any evidence. Search strategy was reported in 36.8% of cases. Strengths of recommendation were clearly reported in 25% of guidelines. The notion of external review was explicitly reported in 23.7% of cases. Finally, the support of a methodologist was reported in 11.8% of the included guidelines.
    CONCLUSIONS: The use of evidence procedures for developing for evidence-based cardiovascular hybrid imaging recommendations and guidelines is currently suboptimal, highlighting the need for more standardized methodological procedures.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:采用多种胆固醇指南,我们通过2004年NCEP/ATPIII评估了推荐的他汀类药物治疗对确定冠状动脉钙(CAC)和心血管疾病(CVD)事件的准确性,2016ESC/EAS,和2013年ACC/AHA指南。
    目的:ACC/AHA指南更准确地识别有心血管疾病风险的人。
    方法:5002/6814名年龄<75岁且无心血管疾病的参与者纳入研究。考虑了CAC类别(>0,≥100和≥300)和10年的CVD结局。灵敏度(SN),特异性(SP),阳性和阴性预测值(PPV和NPV),并计算似然比(LR)。平均年龄为59岁;47%的受试者是男性。
    结果:1297(26%),1381(28%),和2538(51%)有I类适应症他汀类药物/LLT由NCEPATPIII,ESC/EAS,和AHA/ACC指南,分别。SN,SP,NPV,CAC≥300的PPV为:NCEPATPIII(41.1%,75.5%,93.3%和13.4%),ESC/EAS(54.1%,74.8%,94.6%和16.6%),和ACC/AHA(87.2%,52.6%,97.8%和14.5%)。SN,SP,PPV,相应CVD结局的NPV为:NCEPATPIII(45.8%,75.1%,96.3%,和8.9%),ESC/EAS(50.5%,72.9%,98.7%,和3.6%),和AHA/ACC(79.6%,50.7%,98%,和7.7%)。ESC/EAS的阳性LR2.15(95%CI,1.95-2.38)明显较高,ACC/AHA的阴性LR明显较低[0.24,(95%CI0.19-0.31)]。
    结论:尽管ACC/AHA增加了他汀类药物资格的SN,CAC/未来CVD事件的NPV和PPV相似。他汀类药物的ACC/AHAI类适应症可能是亚临床和临床CVD的优越筛查工具。
    BACKGROUND: With multiple cholesterol guidelines, we evaluated the accuracy of recommended statin therapy on identifying coronary artery calcium (CAC) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events by 2004 NCEP/ ATP III, 2016 ESC/EAS, and 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines.
    OBJECTIVE: ACC/AHA guidelines are more accurate in identifying persons at risk for CVD.
    METHODS: 5002/6814 participants age <75 years and free of CVD were included. CAC categories (>0, ≥100, and ≥300) and 10 years of CVD outcomes were considered. Sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated. Mean age was 59 years; 47% of subjects were males.
    RESULTS: 1297 (26%), 1381 (28%), and 2538 (51%) had class I indications for statin/LLT by the NCEP ATP III, ESC/EAS, and AHA/ACC guidelines, respectively. SN, SP, NPV, and PPV for CAC ≥300 were: NCEP ATP III (41.1%, 75.5%, 93.3% and 13.4%), ESC/EAS (54.1%, 74.8%, 94.6% and16.6%), and ACC/AHA (87.2%, 52.6%, 97.8% and 14.5%). SN, SP, PPV, and NPV for corresponding CVD outcomes were: NCEP ATP III (45.8%, 75.1%, 96.3%, and 8.9%), ESC/EAS (50.5%, 72.9%, 98.7%, and 3.6%), and AHA/ACC (79.6%, 50.7%, 98%, and 7.7%). ESC/EAS had significantly higher positive LR 2.15 (95% CI, 1.95 - 2.38) and ACC/AHA had significantly lower negative LR [0.24, (95% CI 0.19 - 0.31)] for corresponding CVD.
    CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increased in SN of statin eligibility by the ACC/AHA, it has similar NPV and PPV for CAC/future CVD events. The ACC/AHA class I indications for statin may be a superior screening tool for subclinical and clinical CVD.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

公众号