Literature DB >> 28265967

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Manesh R Patel1, John H Calhoon2, Gregory J Dehmer3,4, James Aaron Grantham5,6, Thomas M Maddox7,8, David J Maron9, Peter K Smith10.   

Abstract

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable ischemic heart disease were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and in an effort to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing ACS and stable ischemic heart disease individually. This document presents the AUC for ACS. Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, presence of clinical instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, prior reperfusion therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, fractional flow reserve testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario. Seventeen clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by the rating panel: 10 were identified as appropriate, 6 as may be appropriate, and 1 as rarely appropriate. As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were considered appropriate. Likewise, clinical scenarios with unstable angina and intermediate- or high-risk features were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the management of nonculprit artery disease and the timing of revascularization are now also rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACC Appropriate Use Criteria; coronary revascularization; imaging; medical therapy; multimodality

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28265967     DOI: 10.1007/s12350-017-0780-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol        ISSN: 1071-3581            Impact factor:   5.952


  25 in total

1.  Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report.

Authors: 
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2002-12-17       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 2.  AHA Guidelines for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke: 2002 Update: Consensus Panel Guide to Comprehensive Risk Reduction for Adult Patients Without Coronary or Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Diseases. American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee.

Authors:  Thomas A Pearson; Steven N Blair; Stephen R Daniels; Robert H Eckel; Joan M Fair; Stephen P Fortmann; Barry A Franklin; Larry B Goldstein; Philip Greenland; Scott M Grundy; Yuling Hong; Nancy Houston Miller; Ronald M Lauer; Ira S Ockene; Ralph L Sacco; James F Sallis; Sidney C Smith; Neil J Stone; Kathryn A Taubert
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Paul S Chan; Manesh R Patel; Lloyd W Klein; Ronald J Krone; Gregory J Dehmer; Kevin Kennedy; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; W Douglas Weaver; Frederick A Masoudi; John S Rumsfeld; Ralph G Brindis; John A Spertus
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-07-06       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  Shared decision making: science and action.

Authors:  Henry H Ting; Juan Pablo Brito; Victor M Montori
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2014-02-04

5.  ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 Appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Manesh R Patel; Gregory J Dehmer; John W Hirshfeld; Peter K Smith; John A Spertus
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2012-01-30       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 6.  Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Betty Chewning; Carma L Bylund; Bupendra Shah; Neeraj K Arora; Jennifer A Gueguen; Gregory Makoul
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-04-06

7.  Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

Authors:  Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 10.190

8.  Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization and Trends in Utilization, Patient Selection, and Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Nihar R Desai; Steven M Bradley; Craig S Parzynski; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Paul S Chan; John A Spertus; Manesh R Patel; Jeremy Ader; Aaron Soufer; Harlan M Krumholz; Jeptha P Curtis
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction.

Authors:  David S Wald; Joan K Morris; Nicholas J Wald; Alexander J Chase; Richard J Edwards; Liam O Hughes; Colin Berry; Keith G Oldroyd
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial.

Authors:  Anthony H Gershlick; Jamal Nasir Khan; Damian J Kelly; John P Greenwood; Thiagarajah Sasikaran; Nick Curzen; Daniel J Blackman; Miles Dalby; Kathryn L Fairbrother; Winston Banya; Duolao Wang; Marcus Flather; Simon L Hetherington; Andrew D Kelion; Suneel Talwar; Mark Gunning; Roger Hall; Howard Swanton; Gerry P McCann
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  6 in total

1.  Exploring the Healthcare Value of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Appropriateness, Outcomes, and Costs in Michigan Hospitals.

Authors:  Daniel M Alyesh; Milan Seth; David C Miller; James M Dupree; John Syrjamaki; Devraj Sukul; Simon Dixon; Eve A Kerr; Hitinder S Gurm; Brahmajee K Nallamothu
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2018-06

2.  Clinical outcomes of complete revascularization using either angiography-guided or fractional flow reserve-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in non-culprit vessels in ST elevation myocardial infarction patients: insights from a study based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alexandre Hideo-Kajita; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Kayode O Kuku; Solomon S Beyene; Viana Azizi; Yael F Meirovich; Gebremedhin D Melaku; Aaphtaab Dheendsa; Echo J Brathwaite; Sameer Desale; Mohammad Soud; Kazuhiro Dan; Yuichi Ozaki; Ron Waksman; Michael Lipinski
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2018-05-19       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 3.  The elusive role of myocardial perfusion imaging in stable ischemic heart disease: Is ISCHEMIA the answer?

Authors:  Joe X Xie; David E Winchester; Lawrence M Phillips; Rory Hachamovitch; Daniel S Berman; Ron Blankstein; Marcelo F Di Carli; Todd D Miller; Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Leslee J Shaw
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 4.  Revascularization for Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Current Status and Future Prospects after the EXCEL and NOBLE Trials.

Authors:  Mohammed Al-Hijji; Abdallah El Sabbagh; David R Holmes
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.243

5.  Lipoprotein (a) as a residual risk factor for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis in hypertensive patients: a hospital-based cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Xiangming Hu; Xing Yang; Xida Li; Demou Luo; Yingling Zhou; Haojian Dong
Journal:  Lipids Health Dis       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 3.876

6.  Timing of AKI after urgent percutaneous coronary intervention and clinical outcomes: a high-dimensional propensity score analysis.

Authors:  Alan S Go; Thida C Tan; Rishi V Parikh; Andrew P Ambrosy; Leonid V Pravoverov; Sijie Zheng; Thomas K Leong
Journal:  BMC Nephrol       Date:  2021-09-06       Impact factor: 2.388

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.